Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[Chief Joseph]

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

[Escobar06]

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.

[VinBucFan]

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"

[VinBucFan]

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?

[Escobar06]

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]

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.

[VinBucFan]

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

[Durango 95]

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

[VinBucFan]

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?

[Dolorous Jason]

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


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

[Escobar06]

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]

 " 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]

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]

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]

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.