'Shall Not Be Infringed' - What Do These Words Really Mean?

[HumblePi]

The Taliban (and their allies in Afghanistan) have no ballistic missiles, air power or naval power, yet have managed to avoid being wiped out by the most powerful military force on the planet after over 18 years of (alleged?) combat. It is possible, as we should have learned from our experience in Vietnam, for the US military to win every battle and yet not to win the war.

The idea that the (state?) government can declare the mere possession of a (currently legal) gun with certain (scary?) features to be illegal to be any different than having taken that gun should (and likely will?) be challenged in court. That is why most gun "bans" contain a 'grandfather clause' to avoid that situation.

I can legally buy this weapon and about 28,690 machine guns are registered in Texas. Can anyone explain to me how a military grade Browning M-2 twin 50-caliber machine gun in any way fits the description of the federal law on machine gun ownership. Only firearms judged by ATF to have feasible sporting applications can be imported for civilian use.

Under any circumstances, how can this weapon be considered 'feasible of having sporting applications'?
.

 

[j brown's body]

Why, I convened my militia early this morning. Potimus expressed a concern about the somewhat relative nature of the Milkbone supply. I will consider it. Pickles pushed for duck jerky. When I suggested she think of the ducks, she responded, "I am, all day, everyday." This is serious business.

And what occurred at this convention?

 

[humbolt]

And what occurred at this convention?

Dog treats. It keeps the troops in line. No mutinies here.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I can legally buy this weapon and about 28,690 machine guns are registered in Texas. Can anyone explain to me how a military grade Browning M-2 twin 50-caliber machine gun in any way fits the description of the federal law on machine gun ownership. Only firearms judged by ATF to have feasible sporting applications can be imported for civilian use.

Under any circumstances, how can this weapon be considered 'feasible of having sporting applications'?
.

The 2A makes absolutely no mention of sporting or hunting, yet does mention militia (military styled?) and security.

 

[bomberfox]

What's kinky about leftist males pissing where they belong?

You said you love watching this stuff. I cant believe i have to spell this out for you.

 

[AlphaOmega]

You said you love watching this stuff. I cant believe i have to spell this out for you.

No I didn't. You read the sentence too quickly and your brain filled in what you wanted it to say. I intentionally wrote that sentence to see who would bite. You took the bait lil fishy. Try reading the sentence again and use comprehension this time and not emodtions.

 

[TurtleDude]

there are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment. all terms a collective and plural to ensure germaneness of sense.

more unsupported Bot speak

1) all nine justices who have ruled on second amendment issues held there was an individual right

2) even the lapdog FDR Court-in Miller-held that there is an individual right

3) no mainstream legal scholars currently support your nonsense

4) none of the legal scholars in our first century, support your nonsense.

5)nothing in the bill of rights' other clauses support your nonsense.

 

[TurtleDude]

I can legally buy this weapon and about 28,690 machine guns are registered in Texas. Can anyone explain to me how a military grade Browning M-2 twin 50-caliber machine gun in any way fits the description of the federal law on machine gun ownership. Only firearms judged by ATF to have feasible sporting applications can be imported for civilian use.

Under any circumstances, how can this weapon be considered 'feasible of having sporting applications'?
.

that is a term the ATF made up based on the unconstitutional GCA of 68 but I guess we can assume you don't understand that the M2 Browning is NOT IMPORTED

 

[danielpalos]

more unsupported Bot speak

1) all nine justices who have ruled on second amendment issues held there was an individual right

2) even the lapdog FDR Court-in Miller-held that there is an individual right

3) no mainstream legal scholars currently support your nonsense

4) none of the legal scholars in our first century, support your nonsense.

5)nothing in the bill of rights' other clauses support your nonsense.

Our Ninth and Tenth Amendments apply; you must show private and individual rights are secured by our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution. It would have to be a Constitution unto itself for it to have any color of authority, instead of being only and merely the Second Article of Amendment.

All terms in our Second Amendment are plural and collective. The means must be sacrificed to the End. The People are the militia.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

[TurtleDude]

Our Ninth and Tenth Amendments apply; you must show private and individual rights are secured by our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution. It would have to be a Constitution unto itself for it to have any color of authority, instead of being only and merely the Second Article of Amendment.

All terms in our Second Amendment are plural and collective. The means must be sacrificed to the End. The People are the militia.

I did. every single justice who has been part of second amendment cases have held so

 

[danielpalos]

I did. every single justice who has been part of second amendment cases have held so

With no individual terms in the entire amendment?

 

[Fledermaus]

I can legally buy this weapon and about 28,690 machine guns are registered in Texas. Can anyone explain to me how a military grade Browning M-2 twin 50-caliber machine gun in any way fits the description of the federal law on machine gun ownership. Only firearms judged by ATF to have feasible sporting applications can be imported for civilian use.

Under any circumstances, how can this weapon be considered 'feasible of having sporting applications'?
.

When did the "feasible sporting" law come to pass?

 

[Rich2018]

I did. every single justice who has been part of second amendment cases have held so

I read that a legal challenge the the 1994 assault weapons ban violated the 9th amendment was rejected.

But no legal challenge that it violated the 2nd amendment was ever made.

The ban expired in 2004.

 

[HumblePi]

When did the "feasible sporting" law come to pass?

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

Importation of NFA firearms was banned by the 1968 Gun Control Act which implemented a "sporting" clause. Only firearms judged by ATF to have feasible sporting applications can be imported for civilian use. ... The Hughes Amendment affected only machine guns.

 

[Fledermaus]

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

Importation of NFA firearms was banned by the 1968 Gun Control Act which implemented a "sporting" clause. Only firearms judged by ATF to have feasible sporting applications can be imported for civilian use. ... The Hughes Amendment affected only machine guns.

You do know the Browning 50 cal dates to roughly the end of WWI. Right?

Chances are the MG was in state long before the law went into effect.

That and American made weapons aren't normally imported.

 

[danielpalos]

only the unorganized militia complains about infringement.

 

[Rich2018]

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

Importation of NFA firearms was banned by the 1968 Gun Control Act which implemented a "sporting" clause. Only firearms judged by ATF to have feasible sporting applications can be imported for civilian use. ... The Hughes Amendment affected only machine guns.

Are we saying that no AK-47's have been imported since 1968 ?

Or that the ATF have somehow deemed them "sporting/hunting" rifles ?

 

[CLAX1911]

Nukes don't kill people. People do.

radioactive isotopes do just by being in proximity to them do you not understand that radiation is deadly?

You just gotta learn to store it safely, no different than a firearm.

you can't store it safely and yes it is different than a firearm. A firm does not emit gamma rays.

Enough where it is a serious public health problem in this country. No other civilized country has that.

but not 100%. Because 100% of children who accidentally stumbled into a piece of uranium will have radiation sickness and possibly die from it. further you can store a firearm in a safe in a closet and it won't irradiate the house. And it's in no danger of being mishandled by a child.

you don't have to miss handle a radioactive isotope for it to be dangerous while you have to be as close enough to it.

Also know the country is like the US in many ways. so thanks for pointing out that our country is different from other countries I didn't know that. Lol

Like firearms, it's just a matter of being educated on how to store them safely. Why infringe on Americans' right to arms, right?

no it's not it's not like firearms that all firearms do not emit gamma rays. I'm against people owning any kind of radioactive isotope not just something that would be considered a weapon.

 

[CLAX1911]

non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies and being non responsive in open Court where someone actually is vested with the judicial Power.

It's not a non sequitur it's mockery.

 

[CLAX1911]

Ah, but they did not support the tyranny as the armed people did.

Well actually they did because they had no choice. It was only people with guns that can fight against it because unarmed people have no armaments they can't do anything.

 

[Rich2018]

Well actually they did because they had no choice. It was only people with guns that can fight against it because unarmed people have no armaments they can't do anything.

Civil Rights movement in the 1960's ?

 

[CLAX1911]

Civil Rights movement in the 1960's ?

If there was a real tyranny, those in power would have just shot all the protesters.

A tyrant doesn't listen to its people. The fact that people listens and got behind the civil Rights act means there wasn't a tyranny.

 

[Rich2018]

If there was a real tyranny, those in power would have just shot all the protesters.

A tyrant doesn't listen to its people. The fact that people listens and got behind the civil Rights act means there wasn't a tyranny.

Yes, as I repeatedly tell people that think the Revolutionary War was a war against tyranny.

They don't know what real tyranny is, it's not passing a law to remove a right to carry a gun.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes, as I repeatedly tell people that think the Revolutionary War was a war against tyranny.

the revolutionary War was a war against tyranny. They had to shoot and kill people they didn't for the Civil Rights act that's in no way comparable. The throne was not listening to the colonists, that's what a tyrant does. And when the colonists weren't playing ball the throne sent troops to kill them.

They don't know what real tyranny is, it's not passing a law to remove a right to carry a gun.

It seems you don't know what a tyranny is. Apparently you think a government that not only listens to its protesters but forms was 2 address the concerns of the protesters is a tyrant, and a government that sends troops to slay all of its people is not a tyrant.

Taking away rights is a step toward tyranny. I don't think the government should have that power.

 

[Rich2018]

the revolutionary War was a war against tyranny....

The British empire was NOT a tyranny

Britain was a democracy (sort of) and had, had its own revolution almost 100 years before.

...they had to shoot and kill people they didn't for the Civil Rights act that's in no way comparable....

The US army shot and killed people aplenty in the Civil War and in the pacification of the West. Was the USA a tyranny ?

...the throne was not listening to the colonists, that's what a tyrant does....

Congress was not listening to the South in 1861

...and when the colonists weren't playing ball the throne sent troops to kill them...

And went the South didn't play ball, the Union sent troops to kill them

Marching through Georgia
The burning of Atlanta

It seems you don't know what a tyranny is....

It seems you're highly selective when determining what a tyrant is

Apparently you think a government that not only listens to its protesters but forms was 2 address the concerns of the protesters is a tyrant, and a government that sends troops to slay all of its people is not a tyrant.

I think you're confusing the British army in 1776 with SS Einsatzgruppen in 1941, in Russia


Kill ALL the people ?
I think you've watched too many Mel Gibson movies.

Taking away rights is a step toward tyranny. I don't think the government should have that power.

Depends what the rights are. Not all rights are a good thing...and repealing the 2nd amendment is not an act of tyranny. Most of the free world lives without guns...why can't Americans ?