Anti Gun rights activists proven wrong... again.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Yeah it is because most often they over step the boundaries of the Federal Constitution.

That is to be determined by a court of law, not by you.

[ICU 812]

^^^^

And those cases are working their way up to SCOTUS with all the deliberate speed of our federal legal system.

The "Pistol Brae Ban" has been stayed pending appeal to a higher court for instance. However one may feel about that issue, it is in the system and will eventually come before the high court for a decision.

My understanding is that the issue to be decided is not the legality of owning a fore rm brace for a pistol, but rather if the BATFE can even regulate them without a further adjustment in statute law by Congress.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

That is to be determined by a court of law, not by you.

Of course it's not determined by me. You absolutely have no clue. The second amendment is probably the single most reason why this country hasn't been invaded by a foreign country with hostile intentions. It sure isn't our Government, the courts or the Military that is the deterrent. The Constitution is for Government to abide by. They want to alter it for their own benefit.

[ICU 812]

I remember that then President Obama, who some say was a law school Professor of Constitutional law, complained that The Constitution pretty much laid out what the government could not do, rather than setting out what government could do. . . .most noticeably in the Bill of Rights.

This shows that he completely misunderstood the function and purpose of the Constitution and the intendt of the founding fathers.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by readyd

I'm not 100% sure on the fighter aircraft, I think you might be able to own one that is armed, but not be able to fly it. I do know for a fact that you can have fully-functional tanks, cannons and all. It's a ridiculous amount of paperwork and money, but it's only counted as a destructive device and you need to have a tax stamp. Getting proper ammo for it is likely going to be a custom job, and if it's explosive that's another tax stamp PER ROUND.

Tanks, Fighter Jets, ect. That's immaterial. It's about personal self defense. A weapon you can carry on your person or a weapon that is easily accessible in the event you are confronted with a deadly force encounter. That is the fundamental concept of the Second Amendment and it is extended to an Enemy Foreign or Domestic. Our Government can become a Domestic Enemy. The Constitution is quite clear on this and to interpreting it any other way ultimately gives the Government the upper hand and that can be detrimental.

[ICU 812]

^^^

Youve got that right.

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunting as a justification.. Even the anti-gun progressives claim that there is a military related reason for the right to posses and carry arms. They just get it wrong in claiming it is the Government that has that right instead of we-the-people.

[readyd]

Just a funny little government double-think I like to bring up occasionally. The 1938 Supreme Court case that certified that short-barreled shotguns are not protected by the Second Amendment used the reasoning that "Only weapons useful to a militia are protected". Some are now also using the reasoning that weapons useful for military service are not protected by the Second Amendment. So.... which is it? Please government, don't say both are correct.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Of course it's not determined by me. You absolutely have no clue. The second amendment is probably the single most reason why this country hasn't been invaded by a foreign country with hostile intentions. It sure isn't our Government, the courts or the Military that is the deterrent. The Constitution is for Government to abide by. They want to alter it for their own benefit.

What I do know, and you obviously do not, is that the Second Amendment is NOT absolute and he courts have determined that states have the right, within limits, to restrict ownership of certain weapons.

The fact that the U.S. has the strongest military in the world has more to do with no invasion by a foreign country than the Second Amendment.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

What I do know, and you obviously do not, is that the Second Amendment is NOT absolute and he courts have determined that states have the right, within limits, to restrict ownership of certain weapons.

The fact that the U.S. has the strongest military in the world has more to do with no invasion by a foreign country than the Second Amendment.

Ok, you go ahead and believe that. If they can restrict one type of weapon they'll restrict all. If the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute then what's the point in having it and why hasn't it been abolished completely?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Ok, you go ahead and believe that. If they can restrict one type of weapon they'll restrict all. If the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute then what's the point in having it and why hasn't it been abolished completely?

I fully support the right of individuals to own guns for self protection. In 1994 the U.S. passed gun legislation (expired in 2004) that banned certain semi-automatic weapons. I do not remember members of Congress pushing for further legislation to bann ALL guns. tCertain guns are banned in several states but those states have not tried to ban ALL guns. There are very few in this country who support banning all guns.

The Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to own guns but the court system has allowed states to restrict those rights in most cases. When citizens of those states feel the restrictions are unfair, they have the right to oppose those restrictions in court. Some wins, some losses.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by readyd

Just a funny little government double-think I like to bring up occasionally. The 1938 Supreme Court case that certified that short-barreled shotguns are not protected by the Second Amendment used the reasoning that "Only weapons useful to a militia are protected". Some are now also using the reasoning that weapons useful for military service are not protected by the Second Amendment. So.... which is it? Please government, don't say both are correct.

those courts ignored the last part of the 2nd amendment (the infringement part) and was following the state militia theory

its a weird thinking on their part as short barrelled shotguns have been used in war.