Some Liberals do this thing after shootings that is so hypocritical.

[Type Username Here]

We are arguing what the 2nd amendment says and what the framers intended. You have not provided any more legal evidence than me. Your SCOTUS rulings are irrelevant. They do not apply to what we're talking about, restrictions on certain types of weapons.

We'll start with United States v. Miller, where the court declared that a sawed off shotgun was NOT protected under the 2nd Amendment, but the opinion goes on to affirm the Framers sentiment in regards to weapons and militia:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

As I will note further down in my argument, the bold and underlined portion of the ruling is directly related to the intent of the Framers. By the way, Miller's ruling would later be lessen by future courts.

As this shows, it has to be a part of "ordinary military equipment". A nuclear weapon is not an ordinary part of the equipment that a militia man carries. This on the other hand:

http://www.famous-guns.com/wp-content/uploads/colt-m4-05-cqbr.jpg

is very much ordinary military equipment.

Thus, up until Miller, restrictions of weapons were not seen as constitutional. Miller affirmed only that weapons outside of "ordinary military equipment" could be restricted, and affirmed the intent of the Framers in stating that an important aspect of the 2nd Amendment was to keep an well equipped military (see link above).

As for the Framers intent, let's look at the Constitution and The US Code.

Here, we see that that congress can only has the power to regulate militias and military under employment of the United States:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Here, in the US Code, the Government defines the different types of militias:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied


males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section


313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a


declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States


and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the


National Guard.


(b) The classes of the militia are -


(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard


and the Naval Militia; and


(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of


the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the


Naval Militia.

Thus, as evident by the Miller Ruling and the powers of Congress being limited in its power to regulate unorganized militias, that the government has no bounds in outlawing any "ordinary military equipment".

I can go specifically into the Framers anecdotes about the unorganized militia being equivalent in power to the standing military if you wish. Just ask.

You keep citing shyt that has nothing to do with the crux of my argument. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment whether written or by intent that says that there can be no restrictions or regulations on any type of conceivable weapon.

I'm going to ask you again for the 3rd time? Where do you draw the line? If I was a billionaire with a secret underground batcave could I own a nuclear missile? Should fully automatic machine guns be legal? What about my hypothetical mobile device that can signal a small drone that fires projectiles? Can I own a tank?

As stated above, it has to be in reasonable means within an individual's "ordinary military equipment". Those things you mentioned are not.

No it's not at all. Once again, for the 3rd time, I'll cite the fact that many social welfare programs you support like Medicare, Social Security, single payer healthcare, etc. "crip walk on the Constitution" far more than banning extended clips and AR-15s does, but I'm sure you'll convenient ignore that again for the 3rd time.

This is sounding much like a Ron Paul campaign statement. Can you provide an argument, source or describe why you think those program violate the Constitution?

You are being disingenuous because you are picking and choosing what you want to strictly interpret the Constitution about.

How so? I strictly interpret the Constitution on all the Amendments the same. You must have missed the many posts I have made in advocating various amendments just as I have the 2nd.

 

[Type Username Here]

 

[daze23]

This is the level of discourse in this forum.

oh relax. that was my response to you asking 88 if he makes cocaine in his room

please don't shoot me

 

[88m3]

I need to go get drunk but I'll be back later to engage in the fukkery that is this thread.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

GIVE EVERY AMERICAN A MUSKET, BAN EVERY OTHER KIND OF GUN, TELL THEM TO BE HAPPY WITH THE WILL OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS, BROTHER!

 

[newworldafro]

I'm curious what 50 think about the 2nd amendment..........

You would think "gangster" rappers would talk about the Bill of Rights all the time....The 1st and 2nd amendments are what pays their bills....

 

[NZA]

so it's ok to regulate the militia, just not the AR-15s?

 

[88m3]

I forgot about this beauty

 

[Soymuscle Mike]

@TUH

Are you 'peaceful' or are you a hunter?

You can't be both.

 

[Crakface]

Liberals want to be our daddies and your daddy dont trust you with guns. You'll shoot your eye out.

 

[Un-AmericanDreamer]

Democracy doesn't protect itself haven't you heard . I agree with threadstarter. On this particularly issue I lean red eventhough I'm not a gun owner, because they have the better argument. If they government or some other force(criminals, invading armies, gangs, law enforcement,domestic terrorists, the government, mass murderers) wants to flex on the people for whatever reason, your standard pistol ain't gonna do it. I think the original architects wanted people to be able to defend themselves if the need arises and how can you properly defend yourself if your gear is sub-standard?

People are going to wish they had AR-15's, semi-automatics and grenades. I think people should be able to own any crazy ass gun provided they're fit to own it operate it . It's the consequence that comes with having power, a lot of progressives don't see the bigger picture, and they don't ever think things could get worse, but they're wrong and things can get a lot worse. I'll take Sandy Hooks to a situation where the government is seizing everyones guns and forcing them into camps.
The people who want to do destruction are going to do destruction gun control or no gun control. The people who are sitting up here talking about gun control are obviously not the people we should be worried about.

 

[daze23]

Democracy doesn't protect itself haven't you heard . I agree with threadstarter. On this particularly issue I lean red eventhough I'm not a gun owner, because they have the better argument. If they government or some other force(criminals, invading armies, gangs, law enforcement,domestic terrorists, the government, mass murderers) wants to flex on the people for whatever reason, your standard pistol ain't gonna do it. I think the original architects wanted people to be able to defend themselves if the need arises and how can you properly defend yourself if your gear is sub-standard?

People are going to wish they had AR-15's, semi-automatics and grenades. I think people should be able to own any crazy ass gun provided they're fit to own it operate it . It's the consequence that comes with having power, a lot of progressives don't see the bigger picture, and they don't ever think things could get worse, but they're wrong and things can get a lot worse. I'll take Sandy Hooks to a situation where the government is seizing everyones guns and forcing them into camps.
The people who want to do destruction are going to do destruction gun control or no gun control. The people who are sitting up here talking about gun control are obviously not the people we should be worried about.

those dudes in Waco had m16's, ak's, mp5's, and even 50 cal rifles. but then the gub'ment rolled in with these:

 

[Un-AmericanDreamer]

those dudes in Waco had m16's, ak's, mp5's, and even 50 cal rifles. but then the gub'ment rolled in with these:

Being able to defend yourself doesn't mean you'll always win, it just means you can at least mount some kind of resistance. I think a situation where no one had arms is insane. If David Duke or someone crazy came into office tomorrow and wanted to re institute slavery, I'm either going taliban or flying the coup.

 

[Brown_Pride]

those dudes in Waco had m16's, ak's, mp5's, and even 50 cal rifles. but then the gub'ment rolled in with these:

the obvious solution is to deregulate tank sales.