United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: It is here: Court ruling paves way for mass confiscation of firearms in America
Source:
Intellihub
URL Source: https://www.intellihub.com/it-is-he ... cation-of-firearms-in-america/
Published: Oct 22, 2015
Author: Alex Thomas
Post Date: 2015-10-22 11:19:50 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 13184
Comments: 92
(INTELLIHUB) — In a ruling that directly paves the way for mass confiscation of firearms in America, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a much-anticipated decision, has upheld the constitutionality of the New York SAFE Act of 2013. Shockingly, the court ruled that nearly all of the most drastic gun control law in the history of the United States did not violate the Second Amendment and is therefore constitutional. That’s right, a law passed in the wake of Sandy Hook that included and paved the way for confiscation of millions of legally purchased firearms has been ruled “constitutional” with proponents already calling for a similar law to be enacted at the federal level. As an article published by the American Thinker noted, “If the SAFE Act is upheld by the Supreme Court, nothing prevents Congress from summarily outlawing tens of millions of firearms overnight. Once those firearms become contraband, the government may confiscate and destroy them without compensating the owner (just as the government confiscates and destroys illegal drugs). “The Second Circuit’s decision leaves the Second Amendment in its gravest peril ever. Second Amendment rights are now hanging by a one-vote margin in the same Supreme Court that upheld Obamacare and declared a national right to gay marriage. Constitutional conservatives and Second Amendment supporters ought to be terrified over the prospect of Justice Scalia having a heart attack during a Hillary Clinton presidency.” (and as we know Clinton is calling for mass confiscation herself) In the weeks since the most recent mass shooting in the country, literally dozens of mainstream publications have promoted Australia as the country to look towards when considering new gun control laws in America. “Despite the fact that for years gun control groups and anti-gun liberals have claimed that they only want “common sense” gun control, news outlets such as Salon and Slate are once again openly praising Australia’s controversial 1996 gun control law, a law that included a mandatory gun buy back program under the threat of government force. After the Oregon school shooting, highly trafficked liberal news outlet Slate republished an article praising Australia’s gun control law that was originally released in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. In the weeks since the recent shooting the article has become the top read report on the site as well as linked by dozens of other liberal news outlets. (emphasis mine) On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history. Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well. At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent. Like most other articles praising Australia’s gun laws, the author of the Slate article completely leaves out the fact that the buyback program was mandatory which means that anyone that refused to go along with the program was subject to government raids and or violence.” Another recent article published in the mainstream press, this time by CNN, dreamed of disarming all Americans whiling calling for banning all guns “once and for all”. The article, written by liberal poet and Middlebury College professor Jay Parini, was a perfect example of how on one hand gun control advocates and their media allies tell the public that they only want “common sense” reform while on the other they are pushing for a full-scale ban. Parini gets to the crux of his and the many who share his views on the lefts agenda which is the confiscation of millions of legally owned firearms under the threat of government attack and subsequent outlawing of all handguns and rifles. Let me dream for a moment: I would much prefer to live in a country where only hunters who pass appropriately strict tests for mental competence and a knowledge of gun safety can still acquire rifles that are appropriate for hunting. Handguns and assault rifles would be banned, period. Banned. Period. There you have it folks, CNN letting a hard left authoritarian use their platform to “dream” about disarming America. It gets worse. So let’s get rid of guns in this country, once and for all, making it a felony to possess a handgun or assault rifle. Over a period of years, illegal guns will gradually disappear. Guns don’t kill people, as they say. People who acquire guns — legally or illegally — do. And we should make it extremely difficult for them to get their hands on these weapons. Not only are the mainstream media and gun control advocates pushing for a mass confiscation plan in the United States, they are also making it clear that they have no problem with gun owners being shot which would be a likely and obvious outcome if the government decided to outlaw millions of firearms overnight. Just days ago, author and Coppin State University writing teacher D. Watkins published an article on the prominent hard left news outlet Salon.com that called for all gun owners to be shot if they wanted to use their 2nd Amendment right. “Starting out the article with the writers dreams of charging five thousand dollars per bullet, Watkins then makes his position on gun ownership in America startlingly clear.” (emphasis mine) Rock was definitely on point, $5000 bullets would be great but I’d take it a step further––I believe that being shot should be requirement for gun ownership in America. It’s very simple. You need to have gun, like taking selfies with pistols, can’t live with out it? Then take a bullet and you will be granted the right to purchase the firearm of your choice. If we could successfully implement this rule, I guarantee the mass shootings will stop. Watching cable news now in days makes me physically ill. Week in and week out we are forced to learn about another coward, who can’t stand to deal with the same rejection that most of us face–– so they strap themselves with guns and then cock and spray at innocent people. Heartbroken survivors and family member images go viral, as our elected officials remain clueless. So there you have it. A court has upheld a New York law that paves the way for mass confiscation in America while at the same time the mainstream media is pushing this plan for confiscation and making it clear that if gun owners have to be shot to achieve this agenda then so be it. The one question that remains is whether or not the American people will stand by as their 2nd Amendment right is openly destroyed right before their very eyes. This article originally appeared on Intellihub.com. About the Author Alex Thomas is a reporter and opinion journalist who has worked in the alternative media for over three years. His work has been featured on numerous news outlets including Infowars and RT. You can contact him here. Alex is an exclusive weapon of Intellihub. Read more articles by this author here. Feel free to post the above article in part or in full on your website or blog leaving the byline and all original links intact. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0 US) Gun control proponents and media allies also continue to push for mass confiscation
By Alex Thomas
Australian style mass confiscation is coming
“Remember, these are the same liberals who claim that they do not want to take away all guns while literally writing articles promoting a gun law that not only included gun confiscation but also banned purchasing guns for use in self-defense!”
Liberal media now pushing for gun owners to be shot
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-31) not displayed.
.
.
.
#32. To: nolu chan (#29)
Well, no. Most arms would be kept in the state armory. Each state would decide which arms the militia members would keep. But the second amendment protected all arms necessary to protect the security of a free state. "With the conscription acts, the State militias were effectively conscripted into Federal service." Almost half the states have a State Defense Force (also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) which operate under the sole authority of a state government and are not part of the National Guard.
The primary complaint has been registration of defined semiautomatic weapons, not confiscation. You've shot down your own assertion. Historically registration leads to confiscation. It may not say that they're going to confiscate, but there's little doubt that registration paves the way, as the title of the article suggests. So knock off YOUR strawman bullshit! So knock off YOUR strawman bullshit! hondo68 Well said... And everyone should note,--- misterwhite and roscoe do not refute the unconstitutional concept that semi-autos can be regulated/registered.
Correct. It won't be confiscation. It will be a "mandatory buyback" as they did in Australia. Hell, since this action would be in the interest of the community, the government may use the "takings" power of Kelo to grab these weapons and provide "just compensation" for them. (Hmmm. I should be careful. I might give them ideas.)
There we have it, sports fans.. Proof positive from Nolu Chan's own mouth that he considers the federal government to have the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." No, sports fans. The people with their rifles cannot prevail against the U.S. Armed Forces with their equipment. Perhaps tpaine believes that running about in the woods on weekends with a rifle equips him to whip the combined forces of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard. Or do folks believe city dwellers in apartment buildings should be able to possess rocket propelled grenades, C4 explosives, and nuclear explosives? And perhaps those with a personal airstrip in the countryside should have a fully equipped aircraft with a GAU-8/A Avenger Brrrt sticking out the front. The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and beararms. It does not protect an individual "right" to any weaponry imaginable. This was adequate for the purpose when ratified. Show me a picture of a civilian population able to overcome the power of the modern armed forces and I will show you a picture of insanity. What exactly will they have that would permit them to prevail over cruise missiles, air force guns and bombs, and army heavy artillery? Or maybe they want to take their arms to sea and take on the U.S. Navy aircraft, guns, and torpedoes. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Give everyone in the nation all the "arms" of their choice and they will still not be equipped to withstand the force available to the U.S. Armed Forces. The Army and the rest can exert force of an entirely different order of magnitude. There is no conceivable amount of arms which will permit the civilian population to prevail over the Federal armed forces. Not even if they have Grandpa tpaine running around in the woods with an automatic rifle. The Air Force can confront his automatic rifle with a GAU-8/A Avenger. Grandpa tpaine can have his own tank and it won't matter. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. No bearing of arms would be sufficient to prevail against the power of the Federal armed forces.
Show me a picture of a civilian population able to overcome the power of the modern armed forces and I will show you a picture of insanity. It says right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I take the words literally. That means you can have any weapon, aircraft carrier, airstrip, tank you want to. If God forbid a civil war did come to America. It is possible that people resisting with the guns we already have could prevail. The military would split along ideological lines like the rest of the country. Just my opinion. Don't worry I can't afford an aircraft carrier anyway.
I'm looking to get the Beretta ARX-100 when the price comes down a little more. It's got all of those features, including a rail for a grenade launcher.
www.freerepublic.com/focu...c/907467/posts?page=48#48 ---- I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind. -- misterwhite/robertpaulsen
100 million people with 300 million guns? Yeah, I think that's possible.
Yes, it did at the time it was ratified. But arms never applied to things that could not be picked up and carried. The U.S. Armed Forces have a whole lot of stuff that does not fall under the definition of 2nd Amendment arms. No State armed force is equipped to withstand the full force of the Federal forces.
If God forbid a civil war did come to America. It is possible that people resisting with the guns we already have could prevail. The military would split along ideological lines like the rest of the country. If half the federal forces are fighting with the other half, we are no longer talking of the individual right to keep and bear arms. If an individual state (e.g. Texas) were to secede and have the in-state federal nuclear forces go with them, a repeat of the civil war would be unlikely. The force available to both sides would be too great. But this has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear automatic assault rifles of any kind. As the 2nd Amdt proscribes any infringement of the RKBA, I think the govt cannot properly restrict the RKBA. But bearing automatic rifles is now irrelevant to the original purpose of a state or states resisting a usurping Federal government. We would be more reliant on the Federal armed forces refusing to exert its full power. Note that under Art. 1, Sec. 10, Cl. 3: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
The second amendment was written to protect state militias from federal infringement. That would include all arms used by the militia. Back in 1792, all arms could be picked up and carried. But the second amendment never limited arms to that category.
Yep. As it was an explicit declaratory restriction on the federal government, meant to prevent misconstruction or abuse of federal powers, rather than to be construed as the source of the right to keep and bear arms, or as a limitation upon the scope of that right.
There we have it, sports fans.. Proof positive from Nolu Chan's own mouth that he considers the federal government to have the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." Your defeatist opinion is noted, but this is not the issue. ---- You consider that the federal government to have the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." --- Your UNCONSTITUTIONAL beliefs are the issue. I ran about with an M1 for the better part of 3 years in the army, and am well aware what a man with a rifle can accomplish. -- Obviously, you don't... We don't necessarily need to have those arms in our possession, seeing that a man with a rifle can get them when needed. In wars of rebellion, the rebels quickly acquire 'any weapons imaginable' from their foes,---- because they have the initial arms to do so. --- That's one reason the 2nd protects the individual right. Your defeatism is noted. But modern guerrilla type tactics all over the world show us that you are wrong, and that they can fight organised armed forces to a standstill. Of course we have a right to keep and bear arms.. -- Yet you come to the weird conclusion that the federal government has the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." I can only conclude that you've been brainwashed by govt propagandists.
Bearing automatic rifles (or semi-autos) has never been as RELEVANT to the original purpose of the PEOPLE of state or states resisting a usurping Federal government, --- as it is now, --- seeing we now have both Fed and State govts OUT OF CONTROL.
Yeah. What you said.
I hope you know someone who can do some trigger work on it, I hear it's gritty and close to 12lbs... Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
As usual, you are full of shit. Yes, an eighty year old dude who ran around with an M1 sixty years ago can take on the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Army. Hook up with Rambo and you can conquer the world. Yes, a guy with a gun can seize the U.S. arsenal of nukes, take fighter and bomber aircraft, and go on to defeat the combined U.S. armed forces. That's a plan. I am undecided whether to call your unit the Custer Brigade or the John Brown Brigade. If you have not noticed, Federal military bases are not manned primarily by people of the place where they are at. You may imagine that you will quickly acquire your weapons from a military base and not be killed. The U.S. are fought to a standstill by U.S. politicians. Our armed forces (and some others) have the power to reduce the guerrillas and the land about them to a pile of rubble. That would include you and your M-1 if you went all guerrilla on us. No, I come to the conclusion that the people are unable to bear arms that would permit them to prevail over the Federal forces. The power of the Federal armed forces has passed that point. I can only conclude that you have been a pain in the ass, you are a pain in the ass, and you will continue to be a pain in the ass. As for the law, as the Court puts it, you speak of a bygone era. The Second Amendment has been incorporated to apply against the States. Heller at 592: Heller at 624-25: We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. It should be unsurprising that such a significant matter has been for so long judicially unresolved. For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir., at 19: McDonald at 40-41: McDonald at 19-20: With this framework in mind, we now turn directly to the question whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated in the concept of due process. In answering that question, as just explained, we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, or as we have said in a related context, whether this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s his-tory and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). A Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., we found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (some internal quotation marks omitted); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (noting that handguns are “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” ofself-defense); id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (“[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessen-tial self-defense weapon”). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 58). Excerpts from McDonald: [36] We likewise reject municipal respondents’ argument that we should depart from our established incorporation methodology on the ground that making the Second Amendment binding on the States and their subdivisions is inconsistent with principles of federalism and will stifle experimentation. [37-38] Unless we turn back the clock or adopt a special incorporation test applicable only to the Second Amendment, municipal respondents’ argument must be rejected. Under our precedents, if a Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental from an American perspective, then, unless stare decisis counsels otherwise, that guarantee is fully binding on the States and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values. [39] It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). [40] Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir., at 21: Of course, by the prevailing logic of some, 48 Stat. 1236, P.L. 43-474, The National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, paved the way for mass confiscation of weapons: (b) The term "machine gun" means any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. [...] SEC. 5. (a) Within sixty days after the effective date of this Act every person possessing a firearm shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment, and, if such person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof: Provided, That no person shall be required to register under this section with respect to any firearm acquired after the effective date of, and in conformity with the provisions of, this Act.
I am sorry to hear that the Fed and State govts are out of control, and happy to hear you stand on guard to defeat the U.S. Armed Forces with your M-1. And you are prepared for the Zombie wars. A more likely scenario is an economic implosion with a general breakdown of law and order.
Heller at 592: Heller at 624-25: We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. It should be unsurprising that such a significant matter has been for so long judicially unresolved. For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir., at 19: McDonald at 40-41: McDonald at 19-20: With this framework in mind, we now turn directly to the question whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated in the concept of due process. In answering that question, as just explained, we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, or as we have said in a related context, whether this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s his-tory and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). A Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., we found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (some internal quotation marks omitted); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (noting that handguns are “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” ofself-defense); id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (“[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessen-tial self-defense weapon”). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 58). Excerpts from McDonald: [36] We likewise reject municipal respondents’ argument that we should depart from our established incorporation methodology on the ground that making the Second Amendment binding on the States and their subdivisions is inconsistent with principles of federalism and will stifle experimentation. [37-38] Unless we turn back the clock or adopt a special incorporation test applicable only to the Second Amendment, municipal respondents’ argument must be rejected. Under our precedents, if a Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental from an American perspective, then, unless stare decisis counsels otherwise, that guarantee is fully binding on the States and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values. [39] It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). [40] Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir., at 21: - - - - - You could get a hernia picking up and carrying the cannons. And, as quoted above from NYSRPA v Cuomo, "the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense." http://www.nps.gov/fosu/planyourvisit/upload/18_Pounder_Cannon.pdf
They read it wrong. Miller very clearly said that the ONLY weapons protected by the second amendment were those used by a Militia. The Miller court had no idea if a short-barreled shotgun had "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Because of that they remanded the case back to the lower court for them to make that determination. Miller had NOTHING to do with law-abiding citizens possessing weapons for lawful purposes. The Heller court invented that.
Right. That part in the second amendment about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was just rambling and didn't mean anything. "As we put it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” How convenient for you. Now you can rule that any weapon not commonly used for self-defense can be banned. And boy-oh-boy, that list is long.
Are you out of your mind? I want to learn about your idea for the meaning of "well regulated." Hint: nothing to do with government intervention.
Well, there you go. The "arms" protected by the second amendment today in defense of person and home are the same arms as used by the military.
Yeah. I've read 10-12. But it was built as a 2 MOA assault rifle, not a sniper rifle. I'm looking to get a SPARC II red dot, and that reticule is only 2 MOA.
I was being sarcastic.
I doubt it.
Your defeatist opinion is noted, but this is not the issue. ---- You consider that the federal government to have the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." --- Your UNCONSTITUTIONAL beliefs are the issue. In wars of rebellion, the rebels quickly acquire 'any weapons imaginable' from their foes,---- because they have the initial arms to do so. --- That's one reason the 2nd protects the individual right. Your defeatism is noted. But modern guerrilla type tactics all over the world show us that you are wrong, and that they can fight organised armed forces to a standstill. We have a right to keep and bear arms.. -- Yet you come to the weird conclusion that the federal government has the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." I can only conclude that you've been brainwashed by govt propagandists.
So says the KOOKIFORNIA sheep, that willingly stays penned up in the KOOKIFORNIA sheep barn. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Bearing automatic rifles (or semi-autos) has never been as RELEVANT to the original purpose of the PEOPLE of state or states resisting a usurping Federal government, --- as it is now, --- seeing we now have both Fed and (some) State govts OUT OF CONTROL. You know that they are, yet you claim those govts have the power to prohibit our rights to semi-auto arms.. What in hell is wrong with you? Yep, and still you insist that semi-auto arms can be prohibited. --- Get help, you must be ill..
Pitiful of you to conclude in that silly personal way. Why do you imagine I would give a damn about your 'pain in the ass' opinions? --- You've proven yourself to be a big government apologist with anti-constitutional opinions about our rights to semi-auto arms. -- You're contemptible. You're as silly as nolu, with your KOOKIFORNIA obsession. Rave on...
By all means, SLAVE ON, KOOKIFORNIAN. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
No one can hear you 'laughing out loud' in your parents basement, you pitiful fraud.. Or at least we can hope your folks have escaped for the evening.
You're as original as a fight during a hockey game. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Whatever
They know the law. They don't care. In the new Amerika, laws as stipulated in the U.S. constitution and the Bill of Rights no longer exist.
Psalm 37
The military would split along ideological lines like the rest of the country. Just my opinion. " As long as we are not talking about a few people squaring off with an Airborne Division in their front yard, yes it is possible Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
" If God forbid a civil war did come to America. It is possible that people resisting with the guns we already have could prevail. The military would split along ideological lines like the rest of the country. Just my opinion. " Stoner -- yes it is possible. More than possible. The military would split, -- because most of our military men believe implicitly in our Constitution, and its principles of individual liberties.. -- They would not fight for a despotic govt... Nolu Chan has been brainwashed into believing that our military would blindly 'follow the orders' of our politicians.
I agree that many would not. But today's military, rather than the past, is more heavily populated by soldiers that are not even citizens, and probabilities are that they WOULD follow any orders given them. And don't forget that most of the upper ranks are beholden to Oblabula. Regardless, if it starts, it will get very ugly, and very bloody, very quick. Hopefully you & your family will be prepared. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
SCOTUS decided it, as surely as they decided on abortion in Roe and same-sex marriage in Obergefell. The state of the law does not depend on your personal opinion or mine. SCOTUS is empowered to make a binding legal decision, and you are empowered to express your opinion to the world. It is of no legal consequence. Your opinion, if stated as your opinion, and qualified as being contrary to the actual law of the United States, is yours to express.
It was a reason given for withholding authority from the Federal government from infringing upon the existing right to keep and bear arms. It was not a definition of the right. The existing right to keep and bear arms was in the English law when the revolution took place. The existing right held by the colonists was not rewritten or abridged by the 2nd Amendment. It arose as an individual right. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp English Bill of Rights 1689 An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals
Comments (73 - 92) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"The people cannot realistically bear arms which will permit them to prevail over the Federal forces. Of course, arms are things that are carried about, and would not include the full arsenal of Federal weaponry."
#33. To: nolu chan, tpaine, misterwhite, A K A Stone, Deckard, registration apologists, tools, *Bang List* (#27)
You can knock off the strawman bullshit. The ruling does not pave the way for mass confiscation of firearms in America.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#34. To: hondo68, Y'ALL (#33)
You've shot down your own assertion. Historically registration leads to confiscation. It may not say that they're going to confiscate, but there's little doubt that registration paves the way, as the title of the article suggests.
#35. To: hondo68 (#33)
(Edited)
"It may not say that they're going to confiscate, but there's little doubt that registration paves the way, as the title of the article suggests."
#36. To: tpaine (#30)
The people cannot realistically bear arms which will permit them to prevail over the Federal forces. Of course, arms are things that are carried about, and would not include the full arsenal of Federal weaponry.
Arms. Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.
#37. To: nolu chan (#36)
The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and beararms. It does not protect an individual "right" to any weaponry imaginable. This was adequate for the purpose when ratified.
#38. To: nolu chan (#28)
#39. To: misterwhite (#35)
---- since this action would be in the interest of the community, the government may use the "takings" power of Kelo to grab these weapons and provide "just compensation" for them.
#40. To: A K A Stone (#37)
"If God forbid a civil war did come to America. It is possible that people resisting with the guns we already have could prevail."
#41. To: misterwhite (#32)
But the second amendment protected all arms necessary to protect the security of a free state.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#37)
It says right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I take the words literally. That means you can have any weapon, aircraft carrier, airstrip, tank you want to.
#43. To: nolu chan (#41)
"But arms never applied to things that could not be picked up and carried."
#44. To: misterwhite (#43)
But the second amendment never limited arms to that category.
#45. To: nolu chan (#36)
The people cannot realistically bear arms which will permit them to prevail over the Federal forces. Of course, arms are things that are carried about, and would not include the full arsenal of Federal weaponry.
No, sports fans. The people with their rifles cannot prevail against the U.S. Armed Forces with their equipment.
Perhaps tpaine believes that running about in the woods on weekends with a rifle equips him to whip the combined forces of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard.
Or do folks believe city dwellers in apartment buildings should be able to possess rocket propelled grenades, C4 explosives, and nuclear explosives? And perhaps those with a personal airstrip in the countryside should have a fully equipped aircraft with a GAU-8/A Avenger Brrrt sticking out the front.
The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and beararms. It does not protect an individual "right" to any weaponry imaginable.
This was adequate for the purpose when ratified. Show me a picture of a civilian population able to overcome the power of the modern armed forces and I will show you a picture of insanity. What exactly will they have that would permit them to prevail over cruise missiles, air force guns and bombs, and army heavy artillery? Or maybe they want to take their arms to sea and take on the U.S. Navy aircraft, guns, and torpedoes. Arms. Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Give everyone in the nation all the "arms" of their choice and they will still not be equipped to withstand the force available to the U.S. Armed Forces. The Army and the rest can exert force of an entirely different order of magnitude. There is no conceivable amount of arms which will permit the civilian population to prevail over the Federal armed forces. Not even if they have Grandpa tpaine running around in the woods with an automatic rifle. The Air Force can confront his automatic rifle with a GAU-8/A Avenger. Grandpa tpaine can have his own tank and it won't matter.
The people have a right to keep and bear arms. No bearing of arms would be sufficient to prevail against the power of the Federal armed forces.
#46. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#42)
, I think the govt cannot properly restrict the RKBA. But bearing automatic rifles is now irrelevant to the original purpose of a state or states resisting a usurping Federal government.
#47. To: Roscoe (#44)
"As it was an explicit declaratory restriction on the federal government, meant to prevent misconstruction or abuse of federal powers, rather than to be construed as the source of the right to keep and bear arms, or as a limitation upon the scope of that right."
#48. To: misterwhite (#38)
I'm looking to get the Beretta ARX-100 when the price comes down a little more.
#49. To: tpaine (#45)
Your defeatist opinion is noted, but this is not the issue. ---- You consider that the federal government to have the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." --- Your UNCONSTITUTIONAL beliefs are the issue.
I ran about with an M1 for the better part of 3 years in the army, and am well aware what a man with a rifle can accomplish. -- Obviously, you don't...
We don't necessarily need to have those arms in our possession, seeing that a man with a rifle can get them when needed.
In wars of rebellion, the rebels quickly acquire 'any weapons imaginable' from their foes,---- because they have the initial arms to do so. --- That's one reason the 2nd protects the individual right.
Your defeatism is noted. But modern guerrilla type tactics all over the world show us that you are wrong, and that they can fight organised armed forces to a standstill.
Of course we have a right to keep and bear arms.. -- Yet you come to the weird conclusion that the federal government has the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces."
I can only conclude that you've been brainwashed by govt propagandists.
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ....”
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 not 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, infra.
In Heller, the Supreme Court, based on an extensive textual and historical analysis, announced that the Second Amendment's operative clause codified a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons. Recognizing, however, that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, Heller emphasized that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Instead, the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense.
In Heller, we recognized that the codification of this right was prompted by fear that the Federal Government would disarm and thus disable the militias, but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). On the contrary, we stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” Ibid.
III
[33] Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a by-gone era.
McDonald was a landmark case in one respect—the Court held for the first time that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Otherwise, McDonald did not expand upon Heller's analysis and simply reiterated Heller's assurances regarding the viability of many gun-control provisions.
(a) The term firearm means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition.
#50. To: tpaine (#46)
Bearing automatic rifles (or semi-autos) has never been as RELEVANT to the original purpose of the PEOPLE of state or states resisting a usurping Federal government, --- as it is now, --- seeing we now have both Fed and State govts OUT OF CONTROL.
#51. To: misterwhite (#43)
The second amendment was written to protect state militias from federal infringement. That would include all arms used by the militia.
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ....”
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 not 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, infra.
In Heller, the Supreme Court, based on an extensive textual and historical analysis, announced that the Second Amendment's operative clause codified a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons. Recognizing, however, that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, Heller emphasized that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Instead, the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense.
In Heller, we recognized that the codification of this right was prompted by fear that the Federal Government would disarm and thus disable the militias, but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). On the contrary, we stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” Ibid.
III
[33] Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a by-gone era.
McDonald was a landmark case in one respect—the Court held for the first time that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Otherwise, McDonald did not expand upon Heller's analysis and simply reiterated Heller's assurances regarding the viability of many gun-control provisions.
Back in 1792, all arms could be picked up and carried. But the second amendment never limited arms to that category.
#52. To: nolu chan (#51)
"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."
#53. To: nolu chan (#51)
"but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias."
#54. To: misterwhite (#53)
That part in the second amendment about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was just rambling and didn't mean anything.
#55. To: nolu chan (#51)
"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.”
#56. To: CZ82 (#48)
"I hope you know someone who can do some trigger work on it, I hear it's gritty and close to 12lbs..."
#57. To: buckeroo (#54)
#58. To: misterwhite (#57)
#59. To: nolu chan (#49)
The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and beararms. It does not protect an individual "right" to any weaponry imaginable.
If you have not noticed, Federal military bases are not manned primarily by people of the place where they are at.
They are however STAFFED by local people, and of course many US military personnel would NOT co-operate with a federal/military takeover. You may imagine that you will quickly acquire your weapons from a military base and not be killed.
The U.S. are fought to a standstill by U.S. politicians. Our armed forces (and some others) have the power to reduce the guerrillas and the land about them to a pile of rubble.
You're so far gone that you really believe that ALL of our military would fight against their own citizens in a political coup? No, I come to the conclusion that the people are unable to bear arms that would permit them to prevail over the Federal forces. The power of the Federal armed forces has passed that point.
I can only conclude that you have been a pain in the ass, you are a pain in the ass, and you will continue to be a pain in the ass.
Pitiful of you to conclude in that silly personal way. Why do you imagine I would give a damn about your 'pain in the ass' opinions? --- You've proven yourself to be a big government apologist with anti-constitutional opinions about our rights to semi-auto arms. -- You're contemptible.
#60. To: tpaine (#59)
Pitiful of you to conclude in that silly personal way. Why do you imagine I would give a damn about your 'pain in the ass' opinions? --- You've proven yourself to be a big government apologist with anti-constitutional opinions about our rights to semi-auto arms. -- You're contemptible.
#61. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#50)
I think the govt cannot properly restrict the RKBA. But bearing automatic rifles is now irrelevant to the original purpose of a state or states resisting a usurping Federal government.
I am sorry to hear that the Fed and State govts are out of control,
--- and happy to hear you stand on guard to defeat the U.S. Armed Forces with your M-1. And you are prepared for the Zombie wars. --- A more likely scenario is an economic implosion with a general breakdown of law and order.
#62. To: GrandIsland, Y'ALL (#60)
So says the KOOKIFORNIA sheep, that willingly stays penned up in the KOOKIFORNIA sheep barn.
#63. To: tpaine (#62)
Rave on...
#64. To: GrandIsland (#63)
#65. To: tpaine (#64)
in your parents basement
#66. To: GrandIsland (#65)
#67. To: Stoner (#1)
#68. To: A K A Stone (#37)
" If God forbid a civil war did come to America. It is possible that people resisting with the guns we already have could prevail.
#69. To: Stoner, a k a stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#68)
(Edited)
A K A Stone (#37)
#70. To: tpaine (#69)
" Nolu Chan has been brainwashed into believing that our military would blindly 'follow the orders' of our politicians. "
#71. To: misterwhite (#52)
[misterwhite #52] They [SCOTUS] read it wrong.
#72. To: misterwhite (#53)
[misterwhite #53] Right. That part in the second amendment about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was just rambling and didn't mean anything.
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]