patrick.net

I'm sorry--by what definition?

Trumps needs to enact common sense gun control.

I'm 46, am I not allowed in?

anon_cf6c6 says

By definition, all American citizens, if not employed by the government, are part of the current militia.

I'm sorry--by what definition? What's the name of the militia? Who is in charge of it? When do they meet?

Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia

I like to go with the 10th amendment on that one.

Not everyone who fought in The Revolution was in a militia. See my reference to no standing army. And again, "Farmer Brown", had a rifle that rivaled, and more often surpassed, the ones used by the military of England. Compare that to what a citizen can own today.

Talk to a constitutional lawyer about what the meaning is if you want to be enlightened.

ForcedTQ says

Talk to a constitutional lawyer about what the meaning is if you want to be enlightened.

I'd suggest you do the same. Few agree with you.

Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right.

Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.

So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?

So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?

Dude, this was already decided at the Supreme Court over 10 years ago, and the SCOTUS rarely sees 2A cases. This "may" change in your lifetime, but it's unlikely. The SCOTUS decided that AR15's were arms and that's why gun ban happy states have not been able to outright ban AR15's, only "feature bans" like pistol grips, mag releases, etc.

Do some reading, research Heller vs DC and read the courts findings. You'll find your answer. It's also a good read.

Hitler and Stalin would agree w you. The individual is on my there to serve the collective, amirite?

CBOEtrader says

Hitler and Stalin would agree w you. The individual is on my there to serve the collective, amirite?

No, not correct. An individual's rights extend only as far as not to intrude on their neighbor's rights. Again--this is basic law. Think yelling Fire in a crowded theather.

I've read quite a bit actually, and posted a good history of Supreme Court decisions earlier in the thread.

Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons.

That's not the same thing Steve. What your neighbor thinks is his rights often conflicts with your rights. Which is where freedoms come in. Some people think someone else having 2nd amendment rights intrudes on their safety... well guess what, it's my right to own guns.

anon_cf6c6 says

So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?

Dude, this was already decided at the Supreme Court over 10 years ago, and the SCOTUS rarely sees 2A cases. This "may" change in your lifetime, but it's unlikely. The SCOTUS decided that AR15's were arms and that's why gun ban happy states have not been able to outright ban AR15's, only "feature bans" like pistol grips, mag releases, etc.

Anytime some Psycho kills, the same "arm chair" lawyers try to relive Heller vs DC, and the same guys reach the opposite decision of the court, every time. Probably because they aren't thinking about the constitution but are thinking with their emotions.

Do some reading, research Heller vs DC and read the courts findings. You'll find your answer. It's also a good read

It's extremely inaccurate to say that Heller (a case about trigger locks in DC) made any finding as to AR15s whatsoever. A maxim of the court is that they only answer the question asked and nowhere in the facts or opinion is a reference to a AR15.

In fact, if you read the Scalia concurrence you will see he (a textualist) likely would come down against things other then ordinary "handguns & long guns of the time". Alas, he is dead now and his findings are only dicta and not the holding.

That doesn't really apply here--the 10th Amendment doesn't help derive the intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the other Amendments

Of course--we weren't even a nation yet and didn't have a Constitution. So, it's not really relevant to interpreting the 2nd Amendment.

NuttBoxer says

I like to go with the 10th amendment on that one.

That doesn't really apply here--the 10th Amendment doesn't help derive the intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the other Amendments


NuttBoxer says

Not everyone who fought in The Revolution was in a militia. See my reference to no standing army. And again, "Farmer Brown", had a rifle that rivaled, and more often surpassed, the ones used by the military of England. Compare that to what a citizen can own today.

Of course--we weren't even a nation yet and didn't have a Constitution. So, it's not really relevant to interpreting the 2nd Amendment.

Yep, I agree. Unfortunately the NRA won't allow ANY laws to be passed that might affect the ability of someone to get a assault rifle--no matter if they are mentally ill, teenaged, whatever. I'm all for a rational discussion of facts, but that's very hard to find because one side desperately wants to avoid it.

That's because you don't know what the purpose of the 10th amendment is. The purpose is to keep the feds from regulating anything beyond what's listed for them in the Constitution.

Separate comment since I know it will get reported. People who write specious drivel like this should be outed so everyone will know who they are, and avoid infecting themselves with any of their future postings. I don't know who failed to teach you critical thinking, but someone needs to slap your parents, and every teacher you ever had for starters.

I understand the need for civility, but not for the sake of allowing morons to fill up this site with their idiocy. Ridicule has a place in a forum. It keeps stupid/lazy people from wasting everyone's time with their stupid/lazy questions/comments.

The NRA is a private advocacy group that takes zero state or federal dollars and has over 5 million citizens as members. They do not allow or disallow law, they vote with their dollars and at the booth.

Here's the thing, the reason why the AR15 is not banned is because people do not want to ban it. Plain and simple. It's the most popular rifle in the country and 99.9% of people who own them do not commit murders.

Didn't we already have an Assault Weapons ban, and Columbine happened?

Soros is a complete nasty piece of work. He gave a speech, contents unknown, about his collaboration with Nazis at a Jewish Thing and Elie Weisel was shocked. He's never shown the least remorse about his role as a murderous Turncoat.

The Netanyahu Government agrees with Orban about Soros being a threat:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-hungary-soros/israel-backs-hungary-says-financier-soros-is-a-threat-idUSKBN19V1J4

That's correct. And their dollars have bought them a good chunk of the Congressmen and women. That's not how democracy should work.

Pretty sure that poll is not representative of the general public's feelings on the matter.

Soros has stockholm syndrome bad. I have no doubt he has nazi-like policy and law changes in mind for America. The sooner he dies the better.