Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Oh those funny gun lovers . . . « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 30

Chief Joseph

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4309
Offline
« #60 : February 03, 2013, 11:25:35 PM »


The court ruled in favor of the second amendment. Declaring otherwise doesn't actually make it so. It is rather humorous, though.

Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2548
Offline
« #61 : February 03, 2013, 11:26:00 PM »


I never proclaimed Heller v. to be pro or anti anything, only that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the citizens right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon association with a militia.


forgive my ignorance, but does "arms" mean?  does it have a constitutional definition?  does it give me the right to own missiles and nukes?


My personal opinion is that the founders goal was to allow citizens to own any weapons they'd have to go up against if **CENSORED** ever did hit the fan. It was obviously impossible for them to know what types of weapons would exist today, but I think it's safe to assume that if they could have looked into the future, with all of the high powered semi auto and full auto weapons our military possesses, they'd have made it pretty clear "arms" meant a lot more than a .22.
« : February 03, 2013, 11:27:49 PM Escobar06 »

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19566
Online
« #62 : February 03, 2013, 11:29:10 PM »


I never proclaimed Heller v. to be pro or anti anything, only that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the citizens right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon association with a militia.


forgive my ignorance, but does "arms" mean?  does it have a constitutional definition?  does it give me the right to own missiles and nukes?


My personal opinion is that the founders goal was to allow citizens to own any weapons they'd have to go up against if **CENSORED** ever did it the fan. It was obviously impossible for them to know what types of weapons would exist today, but I think it's safe to assume that if they could have looked into the future, with all of the high powered semi auto and full auto weapons our military possesses, they'd have made it pretty clear "arms" meant a lot more than a .22.

Not that it probably matters to you, but the US Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY disagreed with you.  When the 2nd Amendment was ratified there were bans on unusually dangerous weapons and a fair reading of Heller would support bans of a "lot more than a .22"

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19566
Online
« #63 : February 03, 2013, 11:31:52 PM »


The court ruled in favor of the second amendment. Declaring otherwise doesn't actually make it so. It is rather humorous, though.

Illum, do you think the Court was possibly going to rule "not in favor" of the 2nd Amendment? Maybe you're Buggsy's ghost writer?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2548
Offline
« #64 : February 03, 2013, 11:39:37 PM »


I never proclaimed Heller v. to be pro or anti anything, only that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the citizens right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon association with a militia.


forgive my ignorance, but does "arms" mean?  does it have a constitutional definition?  does it give me the right to own missiles and nukes?


My personal opinion is that the founders goal was to allow citizens to own any weapons they'd have to go up against if **CENSORED** ever did it the fan. It was obviously impossible for them to know what types of weapons would exist today, but I think it's safe to assume that if they could have looked into the future, with all of the high powered semi auto and full auto weapons our military possesses, they'd have made it pretty clear "arms" meant a lot more than a .22.

Not that it probably matters to you, but the US Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY disagreed with you.  When the 2nd Amendment was ratified there were bans on unusually dangerous weapons and a fair reading of Heller would support bans of a "lot more than a .22"

What were the "unusually dangerous weapons" in existence when the amendment was ratified?

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19566
Online
« #65 : February 03, 2013, 11:58:37 PM »


I never proclaimed Heller v. to be pro or anti anything, only that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the citizens right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon association with a militia.


forgive my ignorance, but does "arms" mean?  does it have a constitutional definition?  does it give me the right to own missiles and nukes?


My personal opinion is that the founders goal was to allow citizens to own any weapons they'd have to go up against if **CENSORED** ever did it the fan. It was obviously impossible for them to know what types of weapons would exist today, but I think it's safe to assume that if they could have looked into the future, with all of the high powered semi auto and full auto weapons our military possesses, they'd have made it pretty clear "arms" meant a lot more than a .22.

Not that it probably matters to you, but the US Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY disagreed with you.  When the 2nd Amendment was ratified there were bans on unusually dangerous weapons and a fair reading of Heller would support bans of a "lot more than a .22"

What were the "unusually dangerous weapons" in existence when the amendment was ratified?

Not sure, but the discussion is in Heller, which you can find right here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Scalia authored Heller for the majority and he is noted for relying on history and what was the thought when the law was passed. In drafting Heller he included a long discussion that I knows says that the terms "arms" meant non-military style weapons. I think he pointed out that normal people could carry bows and arrows but not more etc., but I dont recall with enough specificity to answer your question, sorry.  If you read the decision though, you will see that the Court actually comments that the meaning of arms in the 2nd amendment would not be helpful against modern bombers etc but that still didnt change their opinion.  In short, it says in ordinary use at the time noting that militia brought weapons from home that were generally NOT military style weapons.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19566
Online
« #66 : February 03, 2013, 11:59:41 PM »


The court ruled in favor of the second amendment. Declaring otherwise doesn't actually make it so. It is rather humorous, though.

Illum, do you think the Court was possibly going to rule "not in favor" of the 2nd Amendment? Maybe you're Buggsy's ghost writer?

PREDICTION: neither Illum nor Buggsy actually answer this question in any meaningful way -- lol

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2771
Online
« #67 : February 04, 2013, 12:07:00 AM »

I see that psycho-boy is off his meds again.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19566
Online
« #68 : February 04, 2013, 12:26:16 AM »

I see that psycho-boy is off his meds again.

Hey Durango, little off-topic but do you really believe that the World Trade Towers were brought down by the federal government in a conspiracy?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17108
Offline
« #69 : February 04, 2013, 07:49:44 AM »

Peanut Butter supports the 2nd Amendment , but he is not a fan.


When Vinny is done , the 2nd amendment will look something like this:

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2548
Offline
« #70 : February 04, 2013, 08:34:21 AM »


I never proclaimed Heller v. to be pro or anti anything, only that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the citizens right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon association with a militia.


forgive my ignorance, but does "arms" mean?  does it have a constitutional definition?  does it give me the right to own missiles and nukes?


My personal opinion is that the founders goal was to allow citizens to own any weapons they'd have to go up against if **CENSORED** ever did it the fan. It was obviously impossible for them to know what types of weapons would exist today, but I think it's safe to assume that if they could have looked into the future, with all of the high powered semi auto and full auto weapons our military possesses, they'd have made it pretty clear "arms" meant a lot more than a .22.

Not that it probably matters to you, but the US Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY disagreed with you.  When the 2nd Amendment was ratified there were bans on unusually dangerous weapons and a fair reading of Heller would support bans of a "lot more than a .22"

What were the "unusually dangerous weapons" in existence when the amendment was ratified?

Not sure, but the discussion is in Heller, which you can find right here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Scalia authored Heller for the majority and he is noted for relying on history and what was the thought when the law was passed. In drafting Heller he included a long discussion that I knows says that the terms "arms" meant non-military style weapons. I think he pointed out that normal people could carry bows and arrows but not more etc., but I dont recall with enough specificity to answer your question, sorry.  If you read the decision though, you will see that the Court actually comments that the meaning of arms in the 2nd amendment would not be helpful against modern bombers etc but that still didnt change their opinion.  In short, it says in ordinary use at the time noting that militia brought weapons from home that were generally NOT military style weapons.


I asked because without being a weapons expert, or more accurately a weapons history expert, I have a feeling that what a citizen could legally own way back in those days was very similar to what the military used as well. I could be wrong but again I believe "unusually dangerous weapons" would probably be a lot more restrictive today than it was back then.

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31588
Offline
« #71 : February 04, 2013, 08:52:14 AM »


 " rendering the District of Columbia’s total ban on private handgun possession unconstitutional "

Very anti-gun indeed.

This peckerhead is arguing that water isn't wet.


Pewter Pirate

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1260
Offline
« #72 : February 04, 2013, 08:53:41 AM »


2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller:
  'The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,'

Correct, because without firearms being available a militia could never form

Pewter Pirate

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1260
Offline
« #73 : February 04, 2013, 08:54:22 AM »


I never proclaimed Heller v. to be pro or anti anything, only that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the citizens right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon association with a militia.


forgive my ignorance, but does "arms" mean?  does it have a constitutional definition?  does it give me the right to own missiles and nukes?


My personal opinion is that the founders goal was to allow citizens to own any weapons they'd have to go up against if **CENSORED** ever did it the fan. It was obviously impossible for them to know what types of weapons would exist today, but I think it's safe to assume that if they could have looked into the future, with all of the high powered semi auto and full auto weapons our military possesses, they'd have made it pretty clear "arms" meant a lot more than a .22.

Not that it probably matters to you, but the US Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY disagreed with you.  When the 2nd Amendment was ratified there were bans on unusually dangerous weapons and a fair reading of Heller would support bans of a "lot more than a .22"

What were the "unusually dangerous weapons" in existence when the amendment was ratified?

Not sure, but the discussion is in Heller, which you can find right here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Scalia authored Heller for the majority and he is noted for relying on history and what was the thought when the law was passed. In drafting Heller he included a long discussion that I knows says that the terms "arms" meant non-military style weapons. I think he pointed out that normal people could carry bows and arrows but not more etc., but I dont recall with enough specificity to answer your question, sorry.  If you read the decision though, you will see that the Court actually comments that the meaning of arms in the 2nd amendment would not be helpful against modern bombers etc but that still didnt change their opinion.  In short, it says in ordinary use at the time noting that militia brought weapons from home that were generally NOT military style weapons.


I asked because without being a weapons expert, or more accurately a weapons history expert, I have a feeling that what a citizen could legally own way back in those days was very similar to what the military used as well. I could be wrong but again I believe "unusually dangerous weapons" would probably be a lot more restrictive today than it was back then.

You are correct

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31588
Offline
« #74 : February 04, 2013, 08:55:29 AM »

Heller is not a pro-gun decision by any means


Illum, do you think the Court was possibly going to rule "not in favor" of the 2nd Amendment?


You can't make this shizzle up.

  Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 30
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Oh those funny gun lovers . . . « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools