Page 40 of 64 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 631

Thread: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

  1. #391
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    Of this I have no doubt, but like I said it all depends upon where the rulings take place at. A ruling, like the one in the 9th Circuit Court about homemade machineguns being exempt from taxation and to legally own, only applies to the jurisdiction of where the court ruled. It has no effect in other parts of the country. The case I mention is valid only in the 9th Circuit and has no effect in the 7th Circuit where I live.
    What you are not recognizing is the fact that this is not a true conversion of a gun.

    It's still a semi-auto in every sense of the word.

    It's almost as fast as a full auto. Maybe even faster.

    But because it still requires a fresh trigger pull for every round fired,... it's still only a semi-auto.

    And that goes for any court and any jurisdiction.
    Last edited by Chuz Life; 07-03-10 at 02:25 AM.

  2. #392
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    The founding fathers did intend for weapons to be used see Militia Act of 1792. The Militia Act of 1792 orders drills to be conducted by the militia; comprised of every citizen between the ages of 18-45.* Part of the drills are live fire exercises with the weapons a citizen carries or is assigned to use; in the case of artillery and warships.

    *I use this phrasing because in modern times women and minorities are not disbarred from serving in the military and the discipline standards the militia uses are the ones from the federal military.
    Firstly, in reading the act, I see nothing that describes drills with live fire exercises. It is possible that I missed it, so please post the section. Secondly, if that IS the case, it would then fall under the jurisdication of the military. Now, if you want to make this into a military argument, I would then say that you are construing the 2nd Amendment to ONLY allow for military use of guns. Now, if you do NOT want to consider the militia part of the military (and I would disagree with you, there) then the Act itself causes regulation of gun use, completely legal under the 2nd Amendment which does not address usage. So, no matter how you look at this, there is nothing in the Militia Act that counters my argument.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #393
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    What you are not recognizing is the fact that this is not a true conversion of a gun.

    It's still a semi-auto in every sense of the word.

    It's almost as fast as a full auto.

    But because it still requires a fresh trigger pull for every round fired,... it's only a semi-auto.

    And that goes for any court and any jurisdiction.
    No, I understand this, but in jurisdictions where a case has a verdict rendered that makes it legal to use then the BATFE regulations take over which says that such things are illegal due to the failure to pay for the tax to own a full auto weapon.

  4. #394
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    No, I understand this, but in jurisdictions where a case has a verdict rendered that makes it legal to use then the BATFE regulations take over which says that such things are illegal due to the failure to pay for the tax to own a full auto weapon.
    IT'S NOT FULL AUTO!

    How many times do I have to remind you?

    READ THIS.
    Last edited by Chuz Life; 07-03-10 at 02:41 AM.

  5. #395
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    You're ignoring the part of the definition for arms which states, "To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life." Hostility is defined as, "The state of war between nations or states; the actions of an open enemy; aggression; attacks of an enemy. These secret enmities broke out in hostilities." Ergo, under the strictest definition the Second Amendment encompasses the actual use of said weapons, unless you're saying that no one fires any weapons during a war...

    All definitions are compliments of Webster's 1828 Dictionary since it's the closest dictionary I can find online to when the Constitution of the United States was written.
    I see that, and thank you for the defintions. Doesn't counter my argument. It's not about what one interprets or what one says is implied. It is what is written. Your definitions take far too many leaps of implication. From a literalist standpoint, the right to keep and bear arms provides no right to fire them. This is why the government can restrict usage only, based on where, why, what, and how.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  6. #396
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    These regulations, and their constitutionality, have nothing to do with your absurd argument. These things are allowed to be regulated by the government because of some constitutional loophole, but because the regulations in question cover thngs that exist wholly outside the right to arms itself.

    It is illegal to fire a gun up in the air within city limits not because of your abusurd loophole but because it wantonly endangers others. Like yelling fire in a theater, you have no right to endanger others in such a way, and so said restriction does not violate the 2nd.

    Similarly, it is illegal to commit murder with a gun not because of your abusurd loophole but because it directly causes harm to others. Like engaging in slander and libel, you have no right to endanger others in such a way, and so said restriction does not violate the 2nd.

    I defy you to definitively ciite -any- restiction n the right to arms that is based on your silliness.
    I defy you to prove that my position is not logical and fits in the literal definition of the 2nd Amendment. Thus far, you haven't even come close. All you've done is calim it's silly, but have done nothing to demonstrate that, paradoxically demonstrating the silliness of YOUR position. What you say above is completely plausable, also. However, you have yet to prove my position inaccurate, without the necessity of veering from an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Come on Goobie. This is supposed to be YOUR topic. I'll tell you quite honestly, I've learned a lot about the 2nd Amendment from you over the years... you and Turtle have altered my position to full support of it. So, let's see if you can combat my position.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  7. #397
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Firstly, in reading the act, I see nothing that describes drills with live fire exercises. It is possible that I missed it, so please post the section. Secondly, if that IS the case, it would then fall under the jurisdication of the military. Now, if you want to make this into a military argument, I would then say that you are construing the 2nd Amendment to ONLY allow for military use of guns. Now, if you do NOT want to consider the militia part of the military (and I would disagree with you, there) then the Act itself causes regulation of gun use, completely legal under the 2nd Amendment which does not address usage. So, no matter how you look at this, there is nothing in the Militia Act that counters my argument.
    I refer you to Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States written by Baron von Stuben that was the discipline prescribed under the act of Congress passed on March 29, 1779. The act was repassed as the Uniform Militia Act in 1792 and required Stuben's book to be used. As such, on pages 16-30 of Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States presents the proper method of firing a weapon as well as the loading of said weapon.

    The argument has nothing to do with the military since that is covered under Article I Section VIII Clause XIV which states, "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" The militia is a separate and distinct organization from the standing military. As I said, under the definitions of the words used in the Second Amendment it does include firing of said weapons.
    Last edited by The_Patriot; 07-03-10 at 02:46 AM.

  8. #398
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    IT'S NOT FULL AUTO!

    How many times do I have to remind you?

    READ THIS.
    I think you're getting a little bent out of shape over this. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm agreeing with you, in fact, but positing the judicial boundries of those rulings that allow them to be used legally. It does not change the fact that what is legal in the 9th Circuit is illegal in the 7th Circuit.

  9. #399
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I see that, and thank you for the defintions. Doesn't counter my argument. It's not about what one interprets or what one says is implied. It is what is written. Your definitions take far too many leaps of implication. From a literalist standpoint, the right to keep and bear arms provides no right to fire them. This is why the government can restrict usage only, based on where, why, what, and how.
    Oh god,.. I'm entering a pissing match with CC.

    (someone stop him,... cries the voice in my head)

    CC,... can you please explain to me what good it does to have a Constitutional "Right to keep and bear arms" against a government (in the event that it ever becomes a tyranny),..... and included in that Constitutional right is the caviot that the very government you have a right to bear arms against,.... has the ultimate say in how you use the arms you have?

    Good gawd,... think man.
    Last edited by Chuz Life; 07-03-10 at 02:47 AM.

  10. #400
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    I think you're getting a little bent out of shape over this. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm agreeing with you, in fact, but positing the judicial boundries of those rulings that allow them to be used legally. It does not change the fact that what is legal in the 9th Circuit is illegal in the 7th Circuit.
    It would help if you would clarify where it is you feel bumpfire mechanisms are and are not currently legal.

Page 40 of 64 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •