NRA Spy Infiltrates Highest Level of Gun Control Lobby for 10 Years

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor
But even if we follow your idea of what the 2nd says, and what Miller says, where are my machine guns? My RPGs? Why are these things regulated? As a member of the militia, I demand them, as they are applicable for militia purposes.

How do you answer your own question, regarding the constitutional issue? Please include your answer under the legal status before the 2008 ruling, as well.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nebor
But even if we follow your idea of what the 2nd says, and what Miller says, where are my machine guns? My RPGs? Why are these things regulated? As a member of the militia, I demand them, as they are applicable for militia purposes.

How do you answer your own question, regarding the constitutional issue? Please include your answer under the legal status before the 2008 ruling, as well.

What answer regarding the constitutional issue? I don't understand what you're asking.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nebor
But even if we follow your idea of what the 2nd says, and what Miller says, where are my machine guns? My RPGs? Why are these things regulated? As a member of the militia, I demand them, as they are applicable for militia purposes.

How do you answer your own question, regarding the constitutional issue? Please include your answer under the legal status before the 2008 ruling, as well.

What answer regarding the constitutional issue? I don't understand what you're asking.

I'm asking you to answer your won question why, since your right to weapons useful to a militia is protectd, you are not allowed to have the weapons you listed.

And I asked you to answer regarding the constitutional issue - why it's constitutional for those weapons to be banned - in case you were going to answer with an argument about the merits of the policy, such as the practical problems with such weapons being available, which isn't the constitutional issue.

And finally, I asked you to include in your answer how you would answer the question before the 2008 ruling, for the decades those weapons were banned.

 

[jpeyton]

We need strong gun control measures. Otherwise we end up with a Virginia Tech every other year.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nebor
But even if we follow your idea of what the 2nd says, and what Miller says, where are my machine guns? My RPGs? Why are these things regulated? As a member of the militia, I demand them, as they are applicable for militia purposes.

How do you answer your own question, regarding the constitutional issue? Please include your answer under the legal status before the 2008 ruling, as well.

What answer regarding the constitutional issue? I don't understand what you're asking.

I'm asking you to answer your won question why, since your right to weapons useful to a militia is protectd, you are not allowed to have the weapons you listed.

And I asked you to answer regarding the constitutional issue - why it's constitutional for those weapons to be banned - in case you were going to answer with an argument about the merits of the policy, such as the practical problems with such weapons being available, which isn't the constitutional issue.

And finally, I asked you to include in your answer how you would answer the question before the 2008 ruling, for the decades those weapons were banned.

Oh, I am allowed to have those weapons I listed. It's only poor people who are excluded from owning them, due to high taxes and artificially limited supply of some items.

I don't feel that the regulation of them was or is constitutional at the level that it exists, and I believe that in the next decade we'll see a lot of those regulations relaxed or done away with entirely.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We need strong gun control measures. Otherwise we end up with a Virginia Tech every other year.

Yeah, maybe we could have some plagues of UK knife crime, or a Winnipeg style beheading!

Virginia Tech had the strictest gun control laws and policies in the country. Everyone followed them except one guy. That one guy killed about 30 people, two of whom were licensed to carry a concealed handgun, but weren't since it was against the rules.

So before you cry for more gun control, how about you enforce the laws that are on the books? That means heavily armed, militarized police manning road checkpoints entering campus, as well as metal detectors at all entrances to every building. That's what it's going to take to prevent another VT via the gun ban route. Which I'm fine with, by the way, as a believer in strict authoritarianism. But it's not the most efficient way of dealing with the problem.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Sounds like you have confused yourself by pretending that "well regulated" doesn't refer to militias, but rather the right to keep and bear arms.

It is one statement, not two. The people are the militia.

It is one sentence anyway. So is this:

A well ventilated case being necessary to the stability of a modern PC, the right of the people use cooling fans shall not be infringed.

Would you argue that the statement is suggesting the people are the case, and that cooling fans should be ventilated?

Originally posted by: dullard
States v. Miller, 307 US 174 [1939] says that if the weapon isn't for a militia, it can be regulated.

Yeah, all while ignoring the fact that short barrel shotguns have obvious functions in militia service. We've had many absurd rulings from our courts over the years.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We need strong gun control measures. Otherwise we end up with a Virginia Tech every other year.

Liberalism rampant in university curricula likely contributes much more to the deterioration of student mental health than anything else.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It's too bad she couldn't find a way to take these anti-gun, anti-self-defense wackos down.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Nebor
But even if we follow your idea of what the 2nd says, and what Miller says, where are my machine guns? My RPGs? Why are these things regulated? As a member of the militia, I demand them, as they are applicable for militia purposes.

The militia is well regluated also. That is why you don't have them.

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Yeah, all while ignoring the fact that short barrel shotguns have obvious functions in militia service. We've had many absurd rulings from our courts over the years.

I see you missed the point entirely. The militia is well-regulated. A person who claims he/she isn't in the militia has been ruled by the supreme court to also fall under the well-regulated portion of the 2nd amendment.

Go ahead and change the constitution to remove the well-regulated portion. I won't stop you. But as long as it is there, the rulings have said that governments have the right to regulate weapons. Even if you have a limited list of weapons, you still have an uninfringed right to have arms. Now, if they tried to stop you from having ANY weapons, then your rights are infringed.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Nebor
But even if we follow your idea of what the 2nd says, and what Miller says, where are my machine guns? My RPGs? Why are these things regulated? As a member of the militia, I demand them, as they are applicable for militia purposes.

The militia is well regluated also. That is why you don't have them.

Wait, what militia? Can you name any people's militias that are exempt from NFA laws?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Wait, what militia? Can you name any people's militias that are exempt from NFA laws?

See above.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Nebor
But even if we follow your idea of what the 2nd says, and what Miller says, where are my machine guns? My RPGs? Why are these things regulated? As a member of the militia, I demand them, as they are applicable for militia purposes.

The militia is well regluated also. That is why you don't have them.

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Yeah, all while ignoring the fact that short barrel shotguns have obvious functions in militia service. We've had many absurd rulings from our courts over the years.

I see you missed the point entirely. The militia is well-regulated. A person who claims he/she isn't in the militia has been ruled by the supreme court to also fall under the well-regulated portion of the 2nd amendment.

Go ahead and change the constitution to remove the well-regulated portion. I won't stop you. But as long as it is there, the rulings have said that governments have the right to regulate weapons. Even if you have a limited list of weapons, you still have an uninfringed right to have arms. Now, if they tried to stop you from having ANY weapons, then your rights are infringed.

That's total BS. Read the majority opinion. Clearly in conflict with what you're saying.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Nebor
That's total BS. Read the majority opinion. Clearly in conflict with what you're saying.

Which majority opinion, ie, which case?

If you are talking about the case I mentioned above, here it is:
Majority opinion included.

we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Directly from the majority opinion. Courts have pretty much unanimously upheld that opinion. Thus the ruling (not a one-off absurd ruling, but a many times backed up ruling) is that you have the right to bear SOME arms, but those arms must be well regulated. You do not have the right to bear any arm you choose.

I'd even help you change the 2nd amendment to remove the "well regulated" portion. But until it is removed, you can't use the 2nd amendment to oppose regulations.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Nebor
That's total BS. Read the majority opinion. Clearly in conflict with what you're saying.

Which majority opinion, ie, which case?

If you are talking about the case I mentioned above, here it is:
Majority opinion included.

we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Directly from the majority opinion. Courts have pretty much unanimously upheld that opinion. Thus the ruling (not a one-off absurd ruling, but a many times backed up ruling) is that you have the right to bear SOME arms, but those arms must be well regulated. You do not have the right to bear any arm you choose.

I'd even help you change the 2nd amendment to remove the "well regulated" portion. But until it is removed, you can't use the 2nd amendment to oppose regulations.

I was talking about the Heller decision.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I was talking about the Heller decision.

Thank you for clarifying. You haven't mentioned Heller yet in this thread. Lets look at Heller.

(1) The US v. Miller opinion states that certain weapons can be banned.
(2) District of Columbia v. Heller opinion states:

Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.
...
Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

All supreme court rulings to date (and most lower court rulings) are the same. You have the right to bear arms, but the government has the right to put reasonable restrictions on them as part of the well-regulated section of the 2nd amendment. And that is just what I said to begin with. The NRA's goal appears to be to stop all regulations, even though regulations are a fundamental part of the 2nd amendment.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I'm really sick and tired of the pro-gun crowd leaning on the crutch of the 2nd amendment, which has ZERO relevance in today's world. Not a single one of you bought a gun thinking "boy, if the US government ever goes apeshit, I'm ready to join the local militia".

You want a gun for hunting? Fine.

You want a gun for self defense? Fine. Concealed carry? There are pro's and con's to that one.

You want to collect guns? Fine.

You want a gun(s) to protect yourselves from your own government? Give me a F'ing break - it's complete and utter BS.

The amendment should be thrown out and re-written, and the crappy laws we have in place for selling guns need to be re-written and actually enforced as well.

note - even though plenty of you are going to come charging in saying ridiculous things - I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to own guns as long as you are a law-abiding citizen.

Not true. That is the reason for my owning certain types of weapons.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We need strong gun control measures. Otherwise we end up with a Virginia Tech every other year.

Proof?

I'll offer counter proof.

We never used to have gun control laws. Every student had rifles, shotguns, and handguns in their vehicles at school. Schools had shooting ranges, shooting teams, hunting clubs, and so on. There are states with NO gun control. 16 year olds can carry almost any gun they want concealed almost anywhere. There are states where carrying is allowed on campus. There are countries where more people carry than do here, and countries where citizens have full military weapons. None of those things has 'caused a vt every other year'. In fact, you'll find that many of the states with the most open gun rules have the lowest crime, lowest accident, etc. Now, I'm not saying that guns reduce crime, but we do know for a fact that guns do not CAUSE crime. Therefore your statement is false.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Nebor
I was talking about the Heller decision.

Thank you for clarifying. You haven't mentioned Heller yet in this thread. Lets look at Heller.

(1) The US v. Miller opinion states that certain weapons can be banned.
(2) District of Columbia v. Heller opinion states:

Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.
...
Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

All supreme court rulings to date (and most lower court rulings) are the same. You have the right to bear arms, but the government has the right to put reasonable restrictions on them as part of the well-regulated section of the 2nd amendment. And that is just what I said to begin with. The NRA's goal appears to be to stop all regulations, even though regulations are a fundamental part of the 2nd amendment.

The regulation is part of a separate clause, referring to the militia. The restrictions placed on "the people" in the other clause have not been legally substantiated at this point, other than to say that the weapons allowed should not be "unusually dangerous or rare." Like I said earlier in this post, if you would read the entire opinion (like I did the minute it came out) it would help a lot. Instead you seem to be posting a popular liberal blog's pipe dream excerpts of what the ruling means.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Nebor
The regulation is part of a separate clause, referring to the militia. The restrictions placed on "the people" in the other clause have not been legally substantiated at this point, other than to say that the weapons allowed should not be "unusually dangerous or rare." Like I said earlier in this post, if you would read the entire opinion (like I did the minute it came out) it would help a lot. Instead you seem to be posting a popular liberal blog's pipe dream excerpts of what the ruling means.

Just point out to me two facts that you claim:
(1) That the supreme court determined that the 2nd amendment allows unregulated arms.
(2) That being liberal makes you want gun control.

I'll wait. You can't, for either case. The second point is just laughable. Many liberals don't want gun control. To believe otherwise is to just blindly follow the wishes of the republican agenda. It is true that a higher percentage of liberals want gun control than the percentage of conservatives. But it isn't a 100%/0% ratio. Thus, it isn't a liberal issue.

 

[DealMonkey]

I'm half surprised no one answered my question concerning who or what regulates our "... well-regulated militia?" Clearly, someone must be in charge.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nebor
But even if we follow your idea of what the 2nd says, and what Miller says, where are my machine guns? My RPGs? Why are these things regulated? As a member of the militia, I demand them, as they are applicable for militia purposes.

How do you answer your own question, regarding the constitutional issue? Please include your answer under the legal status before the 2008 ruling, as well.

What answer regarding the constitutional issue? I don't understand what you're asking.

I'm asking you to answer your won question why, since your right to weapons useful to a militia is protectd, you are not allowed to have the weapons you listed.

And I asked you to answer regarding the constitutional issue - why it's constitutional for those weapons to be banned - in case you were going to answer with an argument about the merits of the policy, such as the practical problems with such weapons being available, which isn't the constitutional issue.

And finally, I asked you to include in your answer how you would answer the question before the 2008 ruling, for the decades those weapons were banned.

Oh, I am allowed to have those weapons I listed. It's only poor people who are excluded from owning them, due to high taxes and artificially limited supply of some items.

I don't feel that the regulation of them was or is constitutional at the level that it exists, and I believe that in the next decade we'll see a lot of those regulations relaxed or done away with entirely.

So your answer to my question is that you think the history of laws banning military weapons like RPG's, machine guns, tanks for that matter, is the Congress and the Courts behaving in violation of the constitution, and you predict that we'll those restrictions relaxed in the next decade?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dullard
I see you missed the point entirely.

You certainly missed my point by completely ingoring the first half of my response to you, but I will try a more direct aproach.

Originally posted by: dullard
The militia is well-regulated.

A militia is not well regulated when the peoples right to keep and bear arms is being infringed, and least not in the sense of a free State. In such a situation, what do you figure would protect a nation from the possibility of it's military turning against the population to strip them of their freedoms?

Originally posted by: dullard
A person who claims he/she isn't in the militia has been ruled by the supreme court to also fall under the well-regulated portion of the 2nd amendment.

And again, it is far from the only time a law's intent has been circumvented by a court.

Originally posted by: dullard
Go ahead and change the constitution to remove the well-regulated portion. I won't stop you. But as long as it is there, the rulings have said that governments have the right to regulate weapons.

I appreciate the "well regulated" phrase right were it is, next to "militia". Your claims to the contrary are nothing more than a strawman built to ingore the fact that you are attempt to justify transposing the phrase elsewhere.

Originally posted by: dullard
Even if you have a limited list of weapons, you still have an uninfringed right to have arms. Now, if they tried to stop you from having ANY weapons, then your rights are infringed.

Sure, and if I built myself a little house in your front yard, I wouldn't be infringing on your property either? As long as I don't rob you of all your land, your property is still "uninfringed", eh?

 

[Kuragami]

The Bill of Rights has been used in exactly the way the founding fathers feared it would. To regulate not government, but the people. As some of them indicated they never should have written it in the first place.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nebor
But even if we follow your idea of what the 2nd says, and what Miller says, where are my machine guns? My RPGs? Why are these things regulated? As a member of the militia, I demand them, as they are applicable for militia purposes.

How do you answer your own question, regarding the constitutional issue? Please include your answer under the legal status before the 2008 ruling, as well.

What answer regarding the constitutional issue? I don't understand what you're asking.

I'm asking you to answer your won question why, since your right to weapons useful to a militia is protectd, you are not allowed to have the weapons you listed.

And I asked you to answer regarding the constitutional issue - why it's constitutional for those weapons to be banned - in case you were going to answer with an argument about the merits of the policy, such as the practical problems with such weapons being available, which isn't the constitutional issue.

And finally, I asked you to include in your answer how you would answer the question before the 2008 ruling, for the decades those weapons were banned.

Oh, I am allowed to have those weapons I listed. It's only poor people who are excluded from owning them, due to high taxes and artificially limited supply of some items.

I don't feel that the regulation of them was or is constitutional at the level that it exists, and I believe that in the next decade we'll see a lot of those regulations relaxed or done away with entirely.

So your answer to my question is that you think the history of laws banning military weapons like RPG's, machine guns, tanks for that matter, is the Congress and the Courts behaving in violation of the constitution, and you predict that we'll those restrictions relaxed in the next decade?

The issue was never really brought to the Supreme Court before (the individual right bit.) And the government flat out lost the case to regulate machine guns under the NFA in Illinois. They chose not to appeal it beyond the Federal District Court because the judges reasoning was a bulletproof gaurantee of sinking the machine gun ban nationwide. Look up United States vs. Rock Island Armory. To quote from Wiki:
""...since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machine gun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machine gun. As applied to machine guns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional." "

The NFA is still unenforcable in the jurisdiction of that court to this day.