Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Trump Announces He’s a Few Weeks From Banning Bump Stocks
Source:
From The Trenches/10th Amendment Center
URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... rom-banning-bump-stocks/235057
Published: Oct 19, 2018
Author: Joe Wolverton, II
Post Date: 2018-10-20 14:17:05 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 23720
Comments: 148
Tenth Amendment Center – by Joe Wolverton, II President Donald Trump promises that he is “just a few weeks” from issuing regulations that would outlaw bump fire stocks. “We’re knocking out bump stocks,” Trump said at a White House news conference on October 1. “We’re in the final two or three weeks, and I’ll be able to write out bump stocks.” This Republican president’s promise to “write out” bump fire stocks sounds suspiciously like his Democratic predecessor’s claim to possess the power to use his phone and pen to make law. “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Barack Obama proclaimed in 2014. “And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions,” he added. This two-party, one policy situation is decades old. Regarding the presidential penchant for disarming the American people, I am reminded of a story I wrote in January 2014: “In an executive ‘Fact Sheet’ issued January 3 by the White House, the president purports to establish new guidelines for “keep[ing] Guns out of Potentially Dangerous Hands.” NOTE: Originally published at The New American Magazine and reposted here with permission from the author. The next paragraph of that story can now be applied to both President Obama and President Trump: “What President Obama — a former part-time law professor — seems not to understand is that every time he issues some executive order, presidential finding, or ‘fact sheet,’ he is exceeding the constitutional limits on his power and thereby violating his oath of office.” All you need to do is change the last name of the president and change the words “fact sheet” to “memorandum” and the story is no different. President Trump is exercising that same unconstitutional “authority” to infringe significantly on the rights protected by the Second Amendment, specifically, the right to “keep and bear arms.” Trump’s attack on the Second Amendment in the form of banning bump fire stocks should come as no surprise. In fact, back in February the president issued an official memorandum ordering the Department of Justice “to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.” Lest there be any misunderstanding, the memo identifies the device in question as “bump fire stocks and similar devices.” For those of you counting on the National Rifle Association (NRA) to come to the defense of the Second Amendment, you probably don’t want to read any further. The NRA released the following statement regarding federal regulation of bump fire stocks: The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. So, no help from the NRA for Americans who believed the group to be defenders of the Second Amendment. Of course, such a statement isn’t surprising considering that the very same press release reveals that the NRA doesn’t understand the purpose of the Second Amendment. “In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities,” the statement reads. Wrong. Our Founding Fathers were not concerned about protecting a man’s right to keep his home and family safe from “danger.” Our Founding Fathers protected the individual’s right to keep and bear arms because they knew that such was the only way to avoid being enslaved by tyrants. They knew from their study of history that a tyrant’s first move was always to disarm the people, and generally to claim it was for their safety, and to establish a standing army so as to convince the people that they didn’t need arms to protect themselves, for the tyrant and his professional soldiers would do it for them. Sound familiar? Consider this gem from William Blackstone, a man of immense and undeniable influence on the Founders and their understanding of rights, civil and natural. In Volume I of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone declares “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” Would anyone in America — or the world, for that matter — argue that the “sanctions of society and laws” are sufficient to “restrain violence” or oppression? Thus, the people must be armed. Commenting on Blackstone’s Commentaries, eminent Founding Era jurist and constitutional scholar St. George Tucker put a finer point on the purpose of protecting the natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. He wrote: This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. Enough said. As for President Trump, he has done many things consistent with his solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. His issuing of a regulation to shrink the scope of the Second Amendment is not one of them, however. It’s this easy: Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution grants federal lawmaking power exclusively to the Congress. Regardless of the word he uses to describe it, any time the president orders the executive branch to create law by executive decree, he is usurping the authority of the legislature. Finally, in his memo, President Trump writes that he was motivated to begin the process of banning bump fire stocks “after the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017.” No matter how many people are clamoring for protection, no matter how many madmen go on murderous sprees, the president is not constitutionally authorized to take “executive actions” that encroach upon rights protected by the Constitution — in this case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Apart from his work as a journalist, Joe Wolverton, II is a professor of American Government at Chattanooga State and was a practicing attorney until 2009. He lives in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Since 2000, Joe has been a featured contributor to The New American magazine. Most recently, he has written a cover story article on the Tea Party movement, as well as a five-part series on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-66) not displayed.
.
.
.
#67. To: sneakypete (#62)
Reading the laws would show you just how ignorant of the law you are. When machineguns were first issued to U.S. troops is irrelevant. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. You have no clue what you are talking about. It is just typical libertarian nonsense. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627-28 (2008)
So, to be clear, you believe that the 2nd Amendment protects, and the US must Constitutionally allow, the private possession of nuclear weapons, by those who can afford them, of course. George Soros, Goldman Sachs, Monsanto and the Teachers' Unions, and you, have the God- given right, in your mind, to posses nuclear weapons. The only reason they can have one and you can't, according to you, is that they can afford to get one, or ten, and you can't. You have indeed taken your belief system to its logical conclusion. This puts you on a desert island with few other people - certainly not enough to actually defend that interpretation against the rest of the public, who recognise that we cannot permit the private possession of nuclear weapons for reasons of our security, freedom and continued lives. So, since YOU won't draw the line, any line, you have effectively neutralised your own voice. If you really care about gun rights, you should come away from the extremist position, and figure out a way, philosophically, to draw a line. If the Constitution says that George Soros and Goldman Sachs and the Archdiocese of New York, being rich, get to have their own nukes, then we're changing the Constitution pronto. It doesn't say that, though. The Second Amendment contains a line-drawing clause: well- regulated. If you stay on the reservation of sanity, you get to have a hand in drawing that line. If you cannot draw any line, and you argue that Soros gets a nuke, and Dahmer could have his very own mustard gas arsenal, then you've grievously weakened your own ability to protect the Second Amendment, because 97% of the people can see that's insane.
Suitcase nukes can be individual weapons. So can small chemical and biological weapons. And stinger missiles.
The Second Amendment does not say "individual firearms". It says "arms". Can you not simply answer the question? Does the Second Amendment protect the right of individuals to possess nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc. You're engaging in a line-drawing exercise, which is good, because it at least makes it clear that you are on the reservation of the sane. You're doing yourself and your cause (protecting individual ownership of firearms) no favors by attacking and insulting me. I'm a natural ally. But if you cannot draw a line, a clear one, if you cannot say "No, there is no personal right to those weapons", and you have to act as though your interlocutor, me, a military veteran myself, is an idiot, a numbnuts, every other sort of thing, then you should understand that you are undercutting yourself politically. Your argument is that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to firearms. Ok. They say that positively and affirmatively. "Individual weapons" in an age of miniaturisation, doesn't get you there. There are individually deployed chemical and biological weapons. You have to be be able to say that NBC weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. You should be able to say that easily, as easily as the insults roll off your tongue. But you don't, at least not yet. And because you don't, you weaken your side. Of course, if the government has the NBC and individuals don't that means the government is stronger. If the British government had had nukes in 1776 we would not be independent. But if individuals could buy and own chemical, biological and nuclear weapons easily and freely, we wouldn't be alive either. The nature of modern weaponry is such that the government is always going to have the upper hand nowadays. That does not mean that we should take guns away from individuals.
If you take the words of the Constitution literally then yes. The constitution's words should be taken literally. The constitution isn't like the Bible which is error free.
You must realize that laws don't prevent things from happening. In spite of the WOD millions misuse and even OD from "illegal" drugs. In spite of tough NYC/Chicago etc gun laws, police and other scum still do bad stuff with guns. Outlaws like Israel have nukes. You can pretend that laws will stop Joe Sixpack & The Knights Templar from having neighborhood nukes to protect themselves from the ghey Argentinian Pope & The Archdiocese of New York, but they'll do what they believe is best for liberty & security, regardless. People are going to do whatever it takes to ensure "the security of a free state". It's human nature for people are going to protect themselves and their families, from authoritarian goons whether government or private.
No, but they make it legal to stop things from happening. The government can, and does, stop people from acquiring NBC weapons, bombs, grenades, Stinger missiles, bomb components and unlicensed machine guns. The government does not stop people from going to church, joining a political party, complaining about corruption. See the difference? Where things are legal, the government doesn't try to interdict. Where things are illegal, the government intervenes quite aggressively to enforce the law. To me, the only open question on that list is machine guns. Everything else on that list is too dangerous for crackpot individuals to have, and of course the government can intervene to prevent people from getting them. The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact. For me, machine guns are the question, the thing on the frontier. Long ago the government decided to regulate them to a small, traceable and traced number. That makes sense to me. I don't want to see the prohibition of semi-automatic weapons, I like concealed carry and open carry, and I want easy licensing to do so (concealed carry). I want uniform, lax national standards, so that people don't face arrest crossing state borders: the 2nd Amendment is a national right, it should be consistent across all states. In my opinion, machine guns are on the cusp of WMD, and should be severely restricted and regulated (as they are). Regulating them as we have for the last century seems sufficient to me: we have not had anybody cut loose with an M-16 in a shopping mall, so I don't see a need to make the law of machine guns any stricter. Don't see a need to make them any laxer either, though. I about the best sort of ally that the gun nuts are ever going to get. A pretty liberal guy on matters of poverty relief, who is tolerant of things that conservatives consider immoral, who doesn't like excessive taxation, who likes the military but who is much more suspicious of the paramilitary. Who will vote for Republicans, and who agrees that the Second Amendment protects a private right to own GUNS, right up through semi-automatic weapons (even if they look SCARY, like "assault rifles" that are, in fact, just semi-automatic rifled gussied up by Mattel to LOOK LIKE bad-ass commando machine guns (and sold to men who are compensating for something). Compensate away, I'll defend your guns rights... IF you will meet me on the plane of sanity and agree that we're talking about GUNS. Just GUNS. Not anti-air missiles, not WMD, not germs, chemicals, bombs, nukes, land mines. We can debate machine guns - that's the line where the debate should be. Nobody in his right mind can seriously think we can let people have Sarin gas and anthrax grenades, or dirty-bomb grade uranium. The Second Amendment must not be interpreted to mean that.
Let me be sure I understand you. You think that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that people have the right to possess their own personal nukes. Do you really think that?
If you take the words of the Constitution literally then yes. No, the Constitution does not say that, even if read literally. Saying the right may not be infringed does not define the right protected from infringement. For all their prior lives before independence from England, the colonists enjoyed the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) which existed under the English common law. The Founders and Framers knew the meaning of "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" all of their lives. The Constitution was crafted with the language of the English common law. The prevailing interpretation of the Constitution is what the words meant to the common people at the time. It is not the drafters but the ratifiers who turned the words on a page into the law of the land. The appearance of the common law legal term, "Right to Keep and Bear Arms," could only convey the same meaning as that term conveyed under English common law, unless stated otherwise. The Framers saw no need to distinguish "Right to Keep and Bear Arms," in the Constitution, from "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" in the common law. They simply used a term everybody knew and understood. The common law right did not protect the unrestricted possession of all weapons of war. The right itself may not be infringed, but the right itself never conveyed some right to possess anything other than weapons that were lawful to possess, under due restrictions. Machineguns and atom bombs are not generally lawful to possess, and are not protected by the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. As such weapons are not encompassed by the 2nd Amendment right, infringing upon one's ability to possess such weapons does not violate the 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Israel is a nation filled with people of above average intelligence. That differs greatly from a group of slobbering libertarians muttering about muh nukes. People are going to do whatever it takes to ensure "the security of a free state". The great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump is tearing down the house that Obama built. He is making America safe again. November 6 is coming. More U.S. Supreme Court Justices like the eminent jurist, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will get appointed by the great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump.
I agree with this interpretation.
Nobody with any imagination that doesn't get wood at the thought of following orders,anyway. Sound like anyone you know?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. If you are going to keep quoting that brain fart known as Heller,why not go ahead and quote Santa and the Easter Bunny,too?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Once again,you are quoting left-wing commie judges,NOT the 2nd Amendment. You just LOVE following orders,don't you?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
BullBush! Granted,suitcase nukes CAN be carried by one man. I even knew a few people in the army that were trained and designated to jump into Easter Europe carrying suitcase nukes if the Russians ever invaded,but since it is impossible for private individuals to create one and the government isn't going to sell them,where would they come from? In addition,there is that part about "weapons typical of those carried by the common soldier". Common soldiers don't carry suitcase nukes,or bio or chemical weapons around.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
"A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That "weapons typical of those carried by the common soldier" part really is "in addition". When was it added?
Just so that we're clear, you do not consider Supreme Court decisions to be law?
Yeah,deys jist too much of that "liberty nonsense" going around,huh? What people REALLY need is a firm dictator that can be a strict father figure,right?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No. Nor does it forbid it. Irrelevant because none are individual weapons carried by the typical soldier.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
It was a major part of the discussion that lead to the adoption of the Second Amendment.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Once again you are putting your ignorance of the law on display.
Not when they violate the original intent of the US Constitution.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
That would be you doing that,Bubba. "The Law" is a flexible thing,able to be changed by any fool or group of fools in power at any given time. Changing the US Constitution is a little more involved. It takes decades of robots like you working diligently in the background to change it,and even then it's not a sure thing you would get away with it. "The People" are the ultimate rulers of this land,not as bunch of punk ass whore lawyers.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Article III Section 1. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Your current judicial daddy is Chief Justice John Roberts. The Constitution vested the judicial power in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as the Congress may establish. I can't find the secret codicil where the Constitution vested such judicial power in a cranky old blogger named sneakypete.
As you are demonstrably an old fool, show me how you, on your own, change the law. You can blog any damfool thing you want and it changes nothing. The truly ignorant people, such as yourself, who proclaim that their cranky stupid demented ideas displace the constitutional interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court, barely rule the wild imaginations of their own delusional mind. When the Court ruled that abortion was a right, that became the law in all 50 states. When the Court ruled that same sex marriage was lawful, that became the law in all 50 states. When and if the Court decides to rule differently, whatever they rule will be the law. This is true, your absurd bleatings to the contrary notwithstanding. When your absurdities meet reality, reality prevails.
One of the reasons you and I should not cross swords on the Second Amendment is that I am a natural ally on the matter. I myself think that the best read of the Second Amendment is that it applies to personal firearms - not the other stuff (WMD, crew-served weapons, Claymore mines, napalm, et al). Our point of political contention, then, is limited to machine guns. From my perspective, it's settled law (by Supreme Court decision). From yours, the Supreme Court overreached and had no authority to make such an opinion. That fight I will leave between you and Nolu Chan, because from my perspective, the law as to where the line is drawn - machine guns - is right, but on this side of the line: handguns, semi-automatic weapons, carrying rights and the general harassment of gun owners by the government, the government is in the wrong and this right is heavily infringed by the authorities. I'm ready and willing to roll back regulations and restrictions and limitations on handgun ownership and carrying, and "assault rifle" legislation which is based on semi-automatic weapons being "scary-looking". The Second Amendment, I believe, is much, much stronger and more protective than that. Also, I think it is a national right that overrides all competing states rights. I do not believe that the states have the authority under the 9th or 10th amendments to infringe upon the First or Second, and that all claims of states rights against the First and Second by right out to be swept aside in favor of broad national free speech, free religion and guns rights. In that context, I am a very good ally indeed, ready and willing to trot out the Constitution, logic, everything, to defend gun rights that I don't choose to exercise much, because I believe in the principle and understand the logic, and believe in the wisdom of the law, and also simply don't like to see the erosion of liberties I HAVE that I don't choose to much exercise, but could. But I'm not going to go onto the battlefield to fight for the principles that Hondo has espoused, of some sort of absolute right to possess any sort of weapons. There are far, far too many crazy average citizens. I can trust my fellow citizens with guns even if some of them are crazy. But a nuke in their basement? (George Soros is rich enough to buy nukes. So is the Teachers Union. So is Monsanto.) Machine guns do enough damage that I draw the line below the them. So if THAT'S the ground on which the fight has to be fought, then I'm sorry, I will not fight for the principle that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear machine guns. I do not believe that is prudent. So for our purposes, I think it would be best not to continue down the Second Amendment road. I walk a lot farther down that road with you than you know, and am a lot more passionate about defending the right - within what I believe are its prudent boundaries - than most East Coast right wing people I know. But I can't get to machine guns. I think that limit is right, and I think the Supreme Court decided wisely, and has the authority to draw that line. So if that's what you and I focus on, we will destroy what otherwise would be a good alliance, over an irreconcilable difference in philosophical world view. It isn't necessary, so I'm going to let it be. We both know that the Second Amendment doesn't protect any "right" of citizens to have nukes, chemical weapons, biological weapons, crew-served weapons, anti-aircraft missiles, land mines, bombs and the like. We both agree that the people have the right to keep and carry pistols, shotguns and rifles, through semiauto. I might be more absolutist than you: I think once a criminal does his time, he retains the right to keep and bear arms - just as he has the right to free speech and freedom of religion. Parolees are still doing time, but once the sentence is complete, I see no constitutional authority to permanently deprive a man of his right to free speech, free religion, guns or voting. You may not even go as far as I do in that - I don't see that the OPTION to deprive a man of his vote or his gun rights. We don't agree on machine guns. We're not going to. Now, because I don't actually EXERCISE my right to keep and bear arms much, it's abstract to me. I'm willing to fight for it, even vote on that basis, but my passion for the subject cools pretty quickly when the guys alongside of me in the trenches are calling me "numbnuts" and treating me with disrespect because I don't agree with them on a certain precept. We're not going to agree on machine guns. So that we remain allies in the bigger fight - which is to get the government out of the business of harassing people over their gun rights - I think we should lay off fighting one another on this subject. I strongly support the Second Amendment, within the rational boundaries that I think it falls, and my Midwestern Michigan boy beliefs in what is "rational" regarding guns sees handguns and long arms as tools that everybody has the right to have and to carry around unmolested, anywhere. That's a pretty good ally. It's as good as you're going to get anyway. Sure, Hondo is an absolute FANATIC on the subject - HE thinks there are no rightful restrictions on nukes. I won't stay in the trenches with him. He can only hurt your cause, and I don't believe in his. So I will leave the argument over machine guns to you and Nolu Chan. I think he's right on the law, and I like that outcome better, but I'd prefer not to divide the defenders of the Second Amendment on the issue. So I'm going to let it be with you on machine guns. That is, as far as I can tell, our only meaningful point of contention (though maybe you don't think that felons should still have the vote and guns rights, like I do - we don't have to fight over that either).
It relevant because there are rich people and organizations that can afford to acquire WMD. If they have the constitutional right to, some will. And that's bad.
As decided by whom? It clear to me that the original intent of the Constitution was to fully uphold the "right" of slaveholders to hold black slaves, and the implicit power of the states to discriminate against blacks and Indians based upon their race. I do not respect the original intent of the Founders on this matter - I do not believe any such right ever existed or CAN exist - and do not want to see the courts treating their evil ideas as authoritative either. In a similar vein, they believed that the states had the right to establish official religion, and to continue to impose religious taxes and worship attendance, within the states, as some did at the time of independence. Their original intent in the First Amendment was to prevent the FEDERAL government from doing that, but to leave it to the states. I oppose the Founders' original intent on the matter. I do not believe that the states have any right to establish a religion, tax people to uphold it, and impose fines for non- attendance. The current Supreme Court agrees with me on this. The Founders passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, making opposition to the President and his policies seditious speech. Their original intent regarding free speech was obviously altogether less thoroughgoing than ours today. I agree with us, and really don't care what sort of limitations were still hanging in their minds from their very British, class-based societies. Original intent is not hard to discern. And it has resulted in a series of really bad things we've had to address as a nation (because the Founders' intent was pretty bad, morally, on certain things). So, while I agree that we can certainly examine and consider their original intent, I do not believe that what they emotionally intended or wanted is binding law on us, or should be. It's persuasive authority - dictum - nothing more (nothing less).
Yet you have no trouble thinking a small cabal of political creatures and vest that sort of power in the hands of a blackmailed homosexual. You really should consider changing your screen name to Shelton Cooper.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
What kind of fool are you? Show me where your lust bunnies have the authority to change the US Constitution,which is the law of the land.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Blah,blah,blah.More anal rantings from a human machine.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Is that where you got that crew served arms can be infringed? My copy of the 2A just says "arms". BTW, "people" is plural as in more than one.
The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution or law, it interprets it. The authority is at Article III. Where is the authority of blogger sneakypete to act as the Deemer™, and to deem laws or Supreme Court interpretations unconstitutional and of no lawful effect. Mule headed moron.
That's what happens when your jackass absurdities meet reality and you have no answer. Pathetic. Try again. As you are demonstrably an old fool, show me how you, on your own, change the law. You can blog any damfool thing you want and it changes nothing. The truly ignorant people, such as yourself, who proclaim that their cranky stupid demented ideas displace the constitutional interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court, barely rule the wild imaginations of their own delusional mind. When the Court ruled that abortion was a right, that became the law in all 50 states. When the Court ruled that same sex marriage was lawful, that became the law in all 50 states. When and if the Court decides to rule differently, whatever they rule will be the law. This is true, your absurd bleatings to the contrary notwithstanding. When your absurdities meet reality, reality prevails.
First of all,we need to define WHAT machine guns are protected for individual ownership under the 2nd Amendment,and which are not. Individual weapons of the type carried by the typical infantryman ARE protected because they are carried by individual soldiers. Belt-fed are not covered by the 2nd Amendment because they are crew-served weapons. Even stuff like the old VN-era M-60 were CREW SERVED,even though the weapon itself was carried by one man. He had an assistant gunner,and he had ammo carriers. I hate this argument even though I have to make it because I,personally,have no interest in machine guns,or any interest in owning one unless it was a historic weapon like a BAR or a M3 greasegun. For one thing,I couldn't afford to shoot it if you gave it to me,so what good is it to me? For another,I am one of those who subscribe to the "1 shot,1 kill" theory. What makes me do my little "happy dance" is 3 shots touching in the bullseye at 100 yards. Besides,if I have to carry the ammo,I damn sure don't want to waste it. Now, because I don't actually EXERCISE my right to keep and bear arms much, it's abstract to me. Machine guns are also abstract to me. I could have one if I wanted because the local sheriff told me all I have to do is apply and he will approve it. I guess I COULD afford to own one and occasionally shoot it if it were that important to me,but it isn't. I would rather use my bolt-action rifle to make ragged holes in targets off in the distance,and spend the rest of my money on antique autos and motorcycles. Truth to tell,I haven't even shot any of my bolt guns in a decade or more. I just kinda got bored with it. The only time I shoot any of my handguns or shotguns anymore is to shoot a snake or a rabid animal. My normal daily "carry gun" is a 22 LR revolver. I have larger caliber handguns and semi-autos,but the 22 will do what I need it to do,and is quieter,cheaper to shoot,and lighter to carry. But I'm not going to go onto the battlefield to fight for the principles that Hondo has espoused,... Yeah,he is a nutcase. Not that it makes any difference because nukes are crew-served weapons,and the FF'ers clearly wrote that crew-served weapons were to be kept in possession of local civil authorities,to be issued in times of emergencies when the militia gets called out. Even then,for the life of me,I can not think of even one set of circumstances where a militia under the control of a local city/county government would ever need nukes So if that's what you and I focus on, we will destroy what otherwise would be a good alliance, over an irreconcilable difference in philosophical world view. Not from MY POV. This really is a circular argument for pro-gunners to argue over because it's theoretical and will remain that way unless the nation goes into revolt,and if that ever happens,the law is whatever you want it to be until the dust settles. I do have friends that own machine guns,including one guy that owns a 50 cal belt fed. He can even afford to shoot it a few times once a year if he saves his money. The fool actually spent part of his inheritance to buy it. I guess being a teenage weapons man in the army spoiled them for me. I don't see anything mystical or magical about them. I see them and think of all the work it takes to move them around,set them up ,and keep them fed and watered. GREAT things if you are keeping the hordes of Red China from coming up your hill to eat you,but pretty much useless for anything else. I also don't see it as a big issue because damn few people have any interest in owning one. I literally know hundreds of people who own shotguns,handguns,and rifles,and less than a dozen that own machine guns. In other words,it really is a non-issue. Most people,even people with big bucks,just don't want one. We don't agree on machine guns. We're not going to. Now, because I don't actually EXERCISE my right to keep and bear arms much, it's abstract to me. I'm willing to fight for it, even vote on that basis, but my passion for the subject cools pretty quickly when the guys alongside of me in the trenches are calling me "numbnuts" and treating me with disrespect because I don't agree with them on a certain precept. My remark had NOTHING to do with machine guns,and everything to do with you or anyone else that thinks some asshat judge can rule them illegal from his lofty perch as a public servant. The ONLY way to make them illegal is to change the US Constitution. BTW,machineguns aren't even illegal to own in Massachusetts. The Kennedy Klan has boocoo bodyguards carrying them around,even in Washington,DC. Remember the incident several years ago when one of Fat Teddy's bodyguards set off a metal detector when following Fat Teddy into the Senate chambers using a peon entrance instead of one for the nobility? The DC police ended up apologizing and giving the bodyguard his Uzi back. They get away with this by forming a corporation,and then having the corporation buy and own the weapons. Sure, Hondo is an absolute FANATIC on the subject - HE thinks there are no rightful restrictions on nukes. Hondo is a anarchist,not a libertarian. Most people outgrow that by the time they turn 13 or 14,but not everybody. So I will leave the argument over machine guns to you and Nolu Chan. I think he's right on the law,... What good is it to be right on "the law" when "the law" is wrong? Brain farts like Heller are the result of a brain fart by a leftist judge being allowed to ignore the Bill of Rights because they conflict with his personal POV. It will remain "the law" right up to the moment someone takes over and decides it is no longer "the law" because it is clearly un-Constituional. Despite what anal people who love to wear red and march in a straight line like Nolu think,the Bill of Rights are not open to change unless you want to dissolve America because without them there would have never been an America,
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
See my post about the Kennedy Klan. EVERY rich family in America has machine guns,and most form a family corporation,and have the corporation buy and possess them. That way you can legally own one even in places like San Francisco,DC,or Boston. Corporations may be artificial people,but they have rights that real people don't have in some places. That IS the power of money.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
That is not clear to me. Granted,that happened a lot and no one seemed to have any problem with it,but that doesn't mean it was Constitutional. The Preamble makes that pretty clear when it "talks" about "all people being created equal,with inalienable rights........."
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
There ya go,and they interpret it according to their own prejudices. Mule headed moron. Better than than a Anal slave boy suckup with no opinion of his own.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Your love of being pimped out by judges just becomes more obvious with every post you make.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Comments (107 - 148) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestMachine guns were first issued to US troops in the 1800's,and this just goes to show you how freaking ignorant of reality the DC court was and is.
#68. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#62)
Heller is not only wrong,it is un-Constitutional. It was a anti-gun brain fart ran though a cherry-picked anti-gun district court in Washington,DC.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
#69. To: hondo68 (#56)
#70. To: sneakypete (#60)
#71. To: sneakypete (#61)
#72. To: Vicomte13 (#71)
Can you not simply answer the question? Does the Second Amendment protect the right of individuals to possess nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc.
#73. To: Vicomte13, Neighborhood Nuclear Superiorty NOW, Joe Sixpacks Knights Templar (#69)
If the Constitution says that George Soros and Goldman Sachs and the Archdiocese of New York, being rich, get to have their own nukes, then we're changing the Constitution pronto.
#74. To: hondo68 (#73)
You must realize that laws don't prevent things from happening.
#75. To: A K A Stone (#72)
If you take the words of the Constitution literally then yes. The constitution's words should be taken literally.
#76. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#72)
Does the Second Amendment protect the right of individuals to possess nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc.
#77. To: hondo68 (#73)
Outlaws like Israel have nukes.
Outlaws like Israel have nukes. You can pretend that laws will stop Joe Sixpack & The Knights Templar from having neighborhood nukes to protect themselves from the ghey Argentinian Pope & The Archdiocese of New York, but they'll do what they believe is best for liberty & security, regardless.
#78. To: nolu chan (#76)
#79. To: nolu chan (#65)
Nobody gives a crap what some cranky old asshat blogger has to say.
#80. To: nolu chan (#66)
Heller, 554 U.S. 570, Syllabus
#81. To: nolu chan (#67)
Reading the laws would show you just how ignorant of the law you are. When machineguns were first issued to U.S. troops is irrelevant. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
#82. To: Vicomte13 (#70)
(Edited)
Suitcase nukes can be individual weapons. So can small chemical and biological weapons. And stinger missiles.
#83. To: sneakypete (#82)
In addition,there is that part about "weapons typical of those carried by the common soldier".
#84. To: sneakypete (#81)
Once again,you are quoting left-wing commie judges,NOT the 2nd Amendment.
#85. To: nolu chan (#68)
It is just typical libertarian nonsense.
#86. To: Vicomte13 (#71)
Does the Second Amendment protect the right of individuals to possess nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc.
#87. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
That "weapons typical of those carried by the common soldier" part really is "in addition". When was it added?
#88. To: sneakypete (#81)
Once again,you are quoting left-wing commie judges,NOT the 2nd Amendment.
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#84)
Just so that we're clear, you do not consider Supreme Court decisions to be law?
#90. To: nolu chan (#88)
Once again you are putting your ignorance of the law on display.
#91. To: sneakypete (#85)
What people REALLY need is a firm dictator that can be a strict father figure,right?
#92. To: sneakypete (#90)
"The Law" is a flexible thing,able to be changed by any fool or group of fools in power at any given time.
"The People" are the ultimate rulers of this land,not as bunch of punk ass whore lawyers.
#93. To: sneakypete (#82)
#94. To: sneakypete (#86)
Irrelevant because none are individual weapons carried by the typical soldier.
#95. To: sneakypete (#89)
(Edited)
Not when they violate the original intent of the US Constitution.
#96. To: nolu chan (#91)
The Constitution vested the judicial power in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as the Congress may establish. I can't find the secret codicil where the Constitution vested such judicial power in a cranky old blogger named sneakypete.
#97. To: nolu chan (#92)
As you are demonstrably an old fool, show me how you, on your own, change the law.
#98. To: nolu chan (#92)
#99. To: sneakypete, living constitution 2A, good imagination (#80)
(Edited)
Santa and the Easter Bunny,too
#100. To: sneakypete (#97)
Show me where your lust bunnies have the authority to change the US Constitution,which is the law of the land.
#101. To: sneakypete (#98)
Blah,blah,blah.More anal rantings from a human machine.
"The People" are the ultimate rulers of this land,not as bunch of punk ass whore lawyers.
#102. To: Vicomte13 (#93)
Our point of political contention, then, is limited to machine guns. From my perspective, it's settled law (by Supreme Court decision). From yours, the Supreme Court overreached and had no authority to make such an opinion.
#103. To: Vicomte13 (#94)
It relevant because there are rich people and organizations that can afford to acquire WMD. If they have the constitutional right to, some will. And that's bad.
#104. To: Vicomte13 (#95)
It clear to me that the original intent of the Constitution was to fully uphold the "right" of slaveholders to hold black slaves, and the implicit power of the states to discriminate against blacks and Indians based upon their race.
#105. To: nolu chan (#100)
The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution or law, it interprets it.
#106. To: nolu chan (#101)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]