The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
If we're basing this all on Miller then automatic weapons should be readily available, as the ruling said only weapons worthy of military use should be owned.
0
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
Looks the cop at the school never entered the building.
According to Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, that’s exactly what happened at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Even with training and a weapon, the officer stalled — and allowed the shooting to continue for about four to six minutes as he stood outside the building. The deputy, Scot Peterson, has since quit.
Honestly, I feel bad for the guy. He finds himself facing the ridiculous carnage we allow in this country and is too scared to risk getting shot and now he gets to live with that guilt and a life time of death threats.
Maybe this gun ridden hellscape is in no one's interest but the gun dealers.
There is no narrative more apt and depressing for this and the last 19 years of school shootings than "Adult with the ability and responsibility to do something while the young and their chaperones are slaughtered chooses instead to do nothing".
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
Anakin?
"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters" Matthew 12:30
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
It's a pretty common turn of phrase. I mean I can look at a Bible and see Jesus saying it too.
The different is the context. Gun control or anti-gun control. There's no middle ground possible here, it's two opposing ideologies and they are going to keep fighting until only one remains.
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
It's a pretty common turn of phrase. I mean I can look at a Bible and see Jesus saying it too.
The different is the context. Gun control or anti-gun control. There's no middle ground possible here, it's two opposing ideologies and they are going to keep fighting until only one remains.
It's more than two sides.
Outright banning of all fire arms, banning of assault weapons, banning of anything not a pistol, banning of anything semi-auto or above, stricter background checks, national registry, etc etc.
Someone can be for stricter gun control laws, but not believe in banning of all firearms. That doesn't put them in the anti-gun control side.
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
It's a pretty common turn of phrase. I mean I can look at a Bible and see Jesus saying it too.
The different is the context. Gun control or anti-gun control. There's no middle ground possible here, it's two opposing ideologies and they are going to keep fighting until only one remains.
Gun control is the middle ground. Unrestricted ownership vs. outright ban are the two sides. Regulation, restriction, that's the compromise in the middle.
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
It's a pretty common turn of phrase. I mean I can look at a Bible and see Jesus saying it too.
The different is the context. Gun control or anti-gun control. There's no middle ground possible here, it's two opposing ideologies and they are going to keep fighting until only one remains.
Gun control is the middle ground. Unrestricted ownership vs. outright ban are the two sides. Regulation, restriction, that's the compromise in the middle.
An entire party, the one in power, doesn't want any compromise. So fuck us I guess right?
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
This is a remarkably incorrect understanding of what private fire arms ownership laws have been like in US history.
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
Yes, they did. Your inability to acknowledge the existence of lower courts or of previous SCOTUS decisions is rather strange.
The US has a long history of gun laws and case law on gun laws. It wasn't until the current court that the interpretation leaned the way it does now. And that was a deliberate strategy on the party of conservative groups to stack the courts and bring cases to bear to establish that reinterpretation.
Let me know when any sort of meaningful movement happens on regulation and restriction. We can start with guns like the AR-15 and mods that enable mass shootings until then Banning seems like the only real option provided.
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
Miller: The 2nd amendment must be interpreted in the light of maintaining the militia.
Heller: The 2nd is an individual right, the militia clause is irrelevant.
That is a SUBSTANTIAL difference, as the Heller dissent points out, and it makes a major difference in case law. There is nothing in Miller supporting your argument at all. There is no several hundred years, you're pulling that our of your ass. Gun precedent is sparse and pre Heller very much on the gun control arguments side.
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
It's a pretty common turn of phrase. I mean I can look at a Bible and see Jesus saying it too.
The different is the context. Gun control or anti-gun control. There's no middle ground possible here, it's two opposing ideologies and they are going to keep fighting until only one remains.
Gun control is the middle ground. Unrestricted ownership vs. outright ban are the two sides. Regulation, restriction, that's the compromise in the middle.
An entire party, the one in power, doesn't want any compromise. So fuck us I guess right?
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
This is a remarkably incorrect understanding of what private fire arms ownership laws have been like in US history.
You mean how you could just buy a shotgun from the Sears Roebuck catalog? How Oswald got his Mannilicher dropped off at his front door? How until 1938 you didn't need a license to manufacture, import or sell firearms, and felons could still openly purchase and possess them? How until 1968 you didn't have to go through a dealer to sell a gun of any kind interstate? The quantity of available guns was lower, but the ownership of them was no different.
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
Miller: The 2nd amendment must be interpreted in the light of maintaining the militia.
Heller: The 2nd is an individual right, the militia clause is irrelevant.
That is a SUBSTANTIAL difference, as the Heller dissent points out, and it makes a major difference in case law. There is nothing in Miller supporting your argument at all. There is no several hundred years, you're pulling that our of your ass. Gun precedent is sparse and pre Heller very much on the gun control arguments side.
Don't forget McDonald which then rules against previous interpretation by saying states are restricted as well.
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
Miller: The 2nd amendment must be interpreted in the light of maintaining the militia.
Heller: The 2nd is an individual right, the militia clause is irrelevant.
That is a SUBSTANTIAL difference, as the Heller dissent points out, and it makes a major difference in case law. There is nothing in Miller supporting your argument at all.
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
It's a pretty common turn of phrase. I mean I can look at a Bible and see Jesus saying it too.
The different is the context. Gun control or anti-gun control. There's no middle ground possible here, it's two opposing ideologies and they are going to keep fighting until only one remains.
Gun control is the middle ground. Unrestricted ownership vs. outright ban are the two sides. Regulation, restriction, that's the compromise in the middle.
An entire party, the one in power, doesn't want any compromise. So fuck us I guess right?
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
This is a remarkably incorrect understanding of what private fire arms ownership laws have been like in US history.
You mean how you could just buy a shotgun from the Sears Roebuck catalog? How Oswald got his Mannilicher dropped off at his front door? How until 1938 you didn't need a license to manufacture, import or sell firearms, and felons could still openly purchase and possess them? How until 1968 you didn't have to go through a dealer to sell a gun of any kind interstate? The quantity of available guns was lower, but the ownership of them was no different.
How you had to lock your guns at the town gate? How you could be *executed* for giving a gun to the wrong person? (That one was, no surprise, racist as shit) How many towns outright banned pistols? We're talking what was legal here, not what they chose to do.
+2
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Pointing out that our current situation arose from our very long, incredibly lax history involving firearms here may less convincing to.. whatever it is you are doing here than you might think. I mean, its a nice reminder that we've always been batshit with gun laws and all. Again, no one is really arguing about case precedent here, its pretty clear: You want a gun? You can have one. Thats the de facto situation we're doing with right now, telling we've always been this lax doesn't sway me away from thinking maybe we should be quite a bit less lax about who gets them.
Pointing out that our current situation arose from our very long, incredibly lax history involving firearms here may less convincing to.. whatever it is you are doing here than you might think. I mean, its a nice reminder that we've always been batshit with gun laws and all. Again, no one is really arguing about case precedent here, its pretty clear: You want a gun? You can have one. Thats the de facto situation we're doing with right now, telling we've always been this lax doesn't sway me away from thinking maybe we should be quite a bit less lax about who gets them.
Not always. Gun laws used to be quite strict at the state level. Limits on the storage of powder (including requiring anything in excess of a small amount to be stored in the public magazine), storage of weapons, ownership of weapons (admittedly racist as hell in the case I found), ownership of types of weapons (for instance, an absolute prohibition on any weapon small enough to be concealed), carry of weapons (concealed carry outright prohibited in many states), etc.
Having the end of this thread feel like a repeat of sixty pages ago seems like an appropriate metaphor for a thread about gun control in the United States.
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
Miller: The 2nd amendment must be interpreted in the light of maintaining the militia.
Heller: The 2nd is an individual right, the militia clause is irrelevant.
That is a SUBSTANTIAL difference, as the Heller dissent points out, and it makes a major difference in case law. There is nothing in Miller supporting your argument at all.
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
It's a pretty common turn of phrase. I mean I can look at a Bible and see Jesus saying it too.
The different is the context. Gun control or anti-gun control. There's no middle ground possible here, it's two opposing ideologies and they are going to keep fighting until only one remains.
Gun control is the middle ground. Unrestricted ownership vs. outright ban are the two sides. Regulation, restriction, that's the compromise in the middle.
An entire party, the one in power, doesn't want any compromise. So fuck us I guess right?
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
This is a remarkably incorrect understanding of what private fire arms ownership laws have been like in US history.
You mean how you could just buy a shotgun from the Sears Roebuck catalog? How Oswald got his Mannilicher dropped off at his front door? How until 1938 you didn't need a license to manufacture, import or sell firearms, and felons could still openly purchase and possess them? How until 1968 you didn't have to go through a dealer to sell a gun of any kind interstate? The quantity of available guns was lower, but the ownership of them was no different.
How you had to lock your guns at the town gate? How you could be *executed* for giving a gun to the wrong person? (That one was, no surprise, racist as shit) How many towns outright banned pistols? We're talking what was legal here, not what they chose to do.
I'm not sure what the argument is here. The racist laws were bad, town limit laws existed mostly before federal age/criminal status requirements and due to the lack of police presence, giving a gun to the wrong person can still get you sent to jail. We've passed federal laws to address these? And none of them had any bearing on whether the owner was in a militia or not.
Having the end of this thread feel like a repeat of sixty pages ago seems like an appropriate metaphor for a thread about gun control in the United States.
Eh. I feel heartened by recent developments. These kids are inspiring. I prefer ignoring the usual dishonest bullshit that ignores history and evidence to protect america's ridiculous and deadly gun culture and instead focus on some people who know wtf they are talking about and using their moment in the spotlight to try and save some lives.
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
Miller: The 2nd amendment must be interpreted in the light of maintaining the militia.
Heller: The 2nd is an individual right, the militia clause is irrelevant.
That is a SUBSTANTIAL difference, as the Heller dissent points out, and it makes a major difference in case law. There is nothing in Miller supporting your argument at all.
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
It's a pretty common turn of phrase. I mean I can look at a Bible and see Jesus saying it too.
The different is the context. Gun control or anti-gun control. There's no middle ground possible here, it's two opposing ideologies and they are going to keep fighting until only one remains.
Gun control is the middle ground. Unrestricted ownership vs. outright ban are the two sides. Regulation, restriction, that's the compromise in the middle.
An entire party, the one in power, doesn't want any compromise. So fuck us I guess right?
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
This is a remarkably incorrect understanding of what private fire arms ownership laws have been like in US history.
You mean how you could just buy a shotgun from the Sears Roebuck catalog? How Oswald got his Mannilicher dropped off at his front door? How until 1938 you didn't need a license to manufacture, import or sell firearms, and felons could still openly purchase and possess them? How until 1968 you didn't have to go through a dealer to sell a gun of any kind interstate? The quantity of available guns was lower, but the ownership of them was no different.
How you had to lock your guns at the town gate? How you could be *executed* for giving a gun to the wrong person? (That one was, no surprise, racist as shit) How many towns outright banned pistols? We're talking what was legal here, not what they chose to do.
I'm not sure what the argument is here. The racist laws were bad, town limit laws existed mostly before federal age/criminal status requirements and due to the lack of police presence, giving a gun to the wrong person can still get you sent to jail. We've passed federal laws to address these? And none of them had any bearing on whether the owner was in a militia or not.
I'm saying that there were very strict gun laws in specific places. Up to and including outright bans. Heller is new precedent, substantially changing the way the 2nd amendment, and thus allowable gun laws, are handled. I'm saying the idea of some 200+ year precedent around gun laws is a myth.
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
Miller: The 2nd amendment must be interpreted in the light of maintaining the militia.
Heller: The 2nd is an individual right, the militia clause is irrelevant.
That is a SUBSTANTIAL difference, as the Heller dissent points out, and it makes a major difference in case law. There is nothing in Miller supporting your argument at all.
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
It's a pretty common turn of phrase. I mean I can look at a Bible and see Jesus saying it too.
The different is the context. Gun control or anti-gun control. There's no middle ground possible here, it's two opposing ideologies and they are going to keep fighting until only one remains.
Gun control is the middle ground. Unrestricted ownership vs. outright ban are the two sides. Regulation, restriction, that's the compromise in the middle.
An entire party, the one in power, doesn't want any compromise. So fuck us I guess right?
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
This is a remarkably incorrect understanding of what private fire arms ownership laws have been like in US history.
You mean how you could just buy a shotgun from the Sears Roebuck catalog? How Oswald got his Mannilicher dropped off at his front door? How until 1938 you didn't need a license to manufacture, import or sell firearms, and felons could still openly purchase and possess them? How until 1968 you didn't have to go through a dealer to sell a gun of any kind interstate? The quantity of available guns was lower, but the ownership of them was no different.
How you had to lock your guns at the town gate? How you could be *executed* for giving a gun to the wrong person? (That one was, no surprise, racist as shit) How many towns outright banned pistols? We're talking what was legal here, not what they chose to do.
I'm not sure what the argument is here. The racist laws were bad, town limit laws existed mostly before federal age/criminal status requirements and due to the lack of police presence, giving a gun to the wrong person can still get you sent to jail. We've passed federal laws to address these? And none of them had any bearing on whether the owner was in a militia or not.
I'm saying that there were very strict gun laws in specific places. Up to and including outright bans. Heller is new precedent, substantially changing the way the 2nd amendment, and thus allowable gun laws, are handled. I'm saying the idea of some 200+ year precedent around gun laws is a myth.
They were specific gun laws in specific places at the time because there wasn't an overall federal law that applied. If some guys on horses rode into town with pistols on their hip in 1887, there was no way to tell if they were just passing through or wanted criminals looking to rob the place. Of course having a local law that said guns had to be turned in made sense then. Or a town without the manpower or resources to regulate ownership on its own without a federal baseline. Today, if someone walks into a bar in Texas with a gun on their hip, aside from thinking they're nuts to want to open carry, chances are they aren't there to rob the place due to federal laws that exist for gun ownership. I'm not saying there was 200+ years of precedent, I'm saying for 200+ years, personal ownership was generally accepted as completely legal. Precedent hadn't been set because it hadn't ever really been challenged the way DC and Chicago challenged it. And if Heller had set such a precedent, the AR bans in California and several northeastern states, the magazine bans, none of them could exist. It in no way said you can own anything you want, even Scalia's majority opinion stated it in no way was to be taken as a blanket approval of all ownership of everything, it just said that yes, the legality of personal ownership is the interpretation, and a blanket ban on an entire type of firearm that is universally accepted as usable for self defense isn't legal.
Generally accepted as legal.. except of course for all the places that banned it.
Edit: and Heller established it as an individual right..that's not the same as making it unlimited. That interpretation you mention at the end? That's the new part. It specifically contradicts Miller.
I just don't know how to fuckin deal with this sometimes.
I fuckin swear every one of my feeds, fuckin jumped, jumped at the deaths of 17 children, too say they aren't enough to do anything. fuckin any little thing about acctually preventing it. Just saying oh well this is life now. We should just make the scene less safe by making it a total shootout every time. No way we should make it a little bit more difficult for me to get and keep my gun.
Its just the most depraved gutless shit I've seen in my whole life.
Generally accepted as legal.. except of course for all the places that banned it.
Edit: and Heller established it as an individual right..that's not the same as making it unlimited. That interpretation you mention at the end? That's the new part. It specifically contradicts Miller.
The ruling didn't say "generally accepted as legal" it said that it was overwhelmingly chosen for lawful self defense, and banning it would amount to preventing lawful self defense, which wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Going strictly with Miller would've been even more explicitly on Heller's side though, as Miller said the ONLY guns the 2nd protects are those with military value. And handguns undeniably have military value. If we're using Miller as a baseline for types of weapons the 2nd protects, FOPA should be overturned and automatics should be legal for sale again.
Generally accepted as legal.. except of course for all the places that banned it.
Edit: and Heller established it as an individual right..that's not the same as making it unlimited. That interpretation you mention at the end? That's the new part. It specifically contradicts Miller.
The ruling didn't say "generally accepted as legal" it said that it was overwhelmingly chosen for lawful self defense, and banning it would amount to preventing lawful self defense, which wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Going strictly with Miller would've been even more explicitly on Heller's side though, as Miller said the ONLY guns the 2nd protects are those with military value. And handguns undeniably have military value. If we're using Miller as a baseline for types of weapons the 2nd protects, FOPA should be overturned and automatics should be legal for sale again.
The ruling didn't say generally accepted as legal. You did. I can find bans much, much more strict than anything DC ever did. Never challenged, and it's not like the Supreme Court sat around doing nothing for the 19th century. Gun laws very rarely were ever challenged, which is why precedent is so rare. That argues very strongly *against* this idea that the 2nd codified an individual right to firearms. Cities and towns were free to restrict them as they wished. The point of Miller vs Heller is that Miller established that the 2nd amendment is in place for militia purposes, where Heller throws that and the entire first part of the 2nd out and calls it an individual right. This is new.
I said "a blanket ban on a type of firearm universally accepted as usable for self defense isn't legal." Which is what the ruling said. And yes, Heller ruled it was an individual right, because it was the first time it had ever been challenged as an individual right. And going into any local gun laws pre-1934 is a useless argument, because up until that point we have no federal legislation to base anything on.
:edit: and that personal ownership had generally been accepted as legal, which it had.
I said "a blanket ban on a type of firearm universally accepted as usable for self defense isn't legal." Which is what the ruling said. And yes, Heller ruled it was an individual right, because it was the first time it had ever been challenged as an individual right. And going into any local gun laws pre-1934 is a useless argument, because up until that point we have no federal legislation to base anything on.
:edit: and that personal ownership had generally been accepted as legal, which it had.
Re italics again, not correct. No Supreme Court cases, and state after state of gun bans and heavy regulations. Including handgun bans more strict than anything DC had. And no, that is not the first time it had been challenged as an individual right. Just because some places didn't regulate doesn't mean they didn't have the authority, and federal legislation has nothing to do with what the 2nd amendment covers.
Again, this is Miller:
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
It is not related to the militia, it is not covered by the 2nd amendment. End of story.
But although
this novel limitation lacks support in the text of
the Amendment, the Amendment’s text does justify a
different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms”
protects only a right to possess and use firearms (in a milita)
'
Later:
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (1876), the
Court sustained a challenge to respondents’ convictions
under the Enforcement Act of 1870 for conspiring to deprive
any individual of “‘any right or privilege granted or
secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United
States.’” Id., at 548. The Court wrote, as to counts 2 and
10 of respondents’ indictment: “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a
lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the
Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent
on that instrument for its existence. The second
amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but
this, as has been seen, means no more than that it
shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the
amendments that has no other effect than to restrict
the powers of the national government.” Id., at 553.
EDIT: Last one.
Indeed, the Second
Amendment was not even mentioned in either full
House of Congress during the legislative proceedings that
led to the passage of the 1934 Act. Yet enforcement of
that law produced the judicial decision that confirmed the
status of the Amendment as limited in reach to military
usage. After reviewing many of the same sources that are
discussed at greater length by the Court today, the Miller
Court unanimously concluded that the Second Amendment
did not apply to the possession of a firearm that did
not have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
If that's accurate I find it extremely telling that the 2nd amendment was never even *mentioned* during discussion of a gun control bill.
I said "a blanket ban on a type of firearm universally accepted as usable for self defense isn't legal." Which is what the ruling said. And yes, Heller ruled it was an individual right, because it was the first time it had ever been challenged as an individual right. And going into any local gun laws pre-1934 is a useless argument, because up until that point we have no federal legislation to base anything on.
:edit: and that personal ownership had generally been accepted as legal, which it had.
Re italics again, not correct. No Supreme Court cases, and state after state of gun bans and heavy regulations. Including handgun bans more strict than anything DC had. And no, that is not the first time it had been challenged as an individual right. Just because some places didn't regulate doesn't mean they didn't have the authority, and federal legislation has nothing to do with what the 2nd amendment covers.
Again, this is Miller:
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
It is not related to the militia, it is not covered by the 2nd amendment. End of story.
...handguns have military/militia value. Miller explicitly supports Heller on the handgun ban portion. Heller is the first time personal ownership was brought to the supreme court. Like literally every other supreme court ruling in history, what states have ruled ceases to matter once the supreme court overrides them. It's... the whole point of having a supreme court. All 50 states could've individually said handguns were illegal, if the supreme court says they're accepted as useful for legal self defense and thus are legal, they have to comply. Aside from race-based state laws that banned gun possession unless approved by a sheriff/some kind of authority in order to ensure only white people had guns, all of which predate the 1934 NFA, I'm not aware of any states that have ever banned handguns, including DC as it's not a state, and the Chicago ban was limited to Chicago, not the state of Illinois. Federal legislation has everything to do with what the 2nd amendment covers, because it's quite literally the law of the land.
Also that summation of the case is outright a lie, as such a person would have no standing.
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia.
And again, the cases were direct contradiction of previous precident. Not some 200+ year continuation.
There was no precedent on the constitutionality of banning an entire class of firearm from possession. The NFA only restricted certain firearms and how they can be obtained, and even FOPA wasn't a "ban", in that it still allowed the possession, transfer and sale of existing automatic weapons.
Really?
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
US v Miller.
And with $200, a background check and a tax stamp, I can still legally purchase and legally own a short barreled shotgun in 2018. That upheld the provision in the NFA restricting it, not banning it.
They specifically said it was not protected by the 2nd dude. The text is right there.
A short barreled shotgun isn't a class of firearm. You can still own a shotgun. Any shotgun, as long as the barrel is over 18 inches long. The ruling upheld a specific provision in the NFA, banning the possession of a specific, unique type of firearm, without the tax paid and stamp. The DC ban was on any and all handguns, at all, regardless of make, model, manufacturer, caliber, capacity, or function.
The irony being, the ruling was based on it serving no military purpose, when:
During World War I, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
This is quibbling. At best. Again all I'm saying here is that Heller and the associated cases are new precedent. They interpret the 2nd wildly different from cases before them. Miller is straight up "the 2nd is about the militia not individual rights" and Heller is "that first sentence doesn't actually mean anything".
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
I don't understand your point here. Just because the second amendment was considered to be a group right didn't mean that guns were outlawed for people who were not in a militia.
If the second amendment is erased tomorrow it would not make owning guns illegal.
I can't describe how much I loathe the "you can make statistics say anything" line.
You can though. Especially in this day and age. Facts are dead and buried.
Yes, if you want to lie then you can say anything you want, that was the implicit point.
Nothing on that graph is a lie.
Every anti-gun statistic will be met with a pro-gun statistic. Every anti-gun anecdote met with a pro-gun anecdote. Both sides have been doing this for more than four decades, while nothing has changed. There's not even a dead horse to beat any more. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then we all deserve to be committed. Maybe it's time to think of a new way?
"Hey guys there's been so much fighting but nothing has really changed, so let's agree to just end things here when our side is currently holding all the power. I think that's fair."
No.
Literally, not what I said at all. You're so blinded by self righteousness you don't even realize I'm on your side.
You're arguing against gun control because it's too hard.
You are not on our side.
No, I literally am not. I'm arguing against the "us or them, you're with us or you're against us" bullheaded nonsense that has literally brought us to this point of complete inaction and has paralyzed the possibility of ANY meaningful reform. Whatever side you're on, I don't want to be on, because it leads nowhere.
Because it literally is "us vs them" now. It always has been. We've tried to compromise with the anti-gun control people and they have never once come to the table in good faith. Any change is too drastic, any time is too soon, any restriction is too much.
This bullshit "meaningful reform" won't happen because they don't want it to happen. Any ground we give up will never be given back as they seek more and more. Now is the time to actively fight back because they are the enemy.
They're not the enemy, and thinking of them as "the enemy" only puts them on the defensive. There's 80 million gun owners. Based on membership dues it's estimated the NRA has 5 million members. The NRA themselves claims 10 million more gun owners "support" them. That's sixty five million gun owners who don't belong to or support the NRA. That's 65 million people you can win, but you want to make them "the enemy." Why would anyone want to help someone who treats them like "the enemy"?
They're always defensive. They've always BEEN defensive. They have never ever wanted to help and why would they start now? Where has that gotten us in the past few decades?
You're spouting bullshit, claiming that if we just work together then everything will be alright when that has never EVER been proven to work with these people.
Aside from parts the FOPA which rolled back a few parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act that were seen as an overreach, on interstate sales, ammo and gun shipping and transportation, while also prohibiting new manufacture of civilian automatic weapons, every piece of federal gun legislation that has passed has been to increase restrictions since 1934.
No. You do not get to pick and choose these minuscule table scraps. The NRA is responsible for introducing laws that prohibit a searchable database of guns and who they're registered to, prohibiting the CDC from doing studies on guns, currently trying to nullify states rights to decide who gets to conceal carry, actively fights any and all restrictions on any type of gun or gun accessory, and is advocating arming teachers with firearms as a solution to school shootings.
That is what who we are fighting. The NRA, the people they're buying, and anyone who supports their ideals.
Show me where I don't support background checks, where I do support national reciprocity. Show me a single place I even suggested I supported anything the NRA supports or stands for.
We're talking about 8 pieces of comprehensively written legislation that managed to be passed, and a 9th that was a complete failure and piece of shit and solidified the "cold dead hands" movement. These aren't table scraps. They're a blueprint on how gun legislation should be written and passed, that we've somehow forgotten. Nine times in sixty years, legislation was signed and upheld constitutionally.
That's the thing though, your opinion on guns does not matter the only opinion on guns that matters is the NRA. You may as well just copy from their website and paste it here because THAT is your opinion on guns, full stop. As a gun advocate, you have no voice because the NRA owns your voice. Every time you vote for an NRA-supported candidate, you are ceding your voice to the NRA because the NRA owns them. Until you and others take down the NRA or their GOP lackeys and the judges they got seated, your opinion on guns DOES NOT MATTER.
Posts
If we're basing this all on Miller then automatic weapons should be readily available, as the ruling said only weapons worthy of military use should be owned.
There is no narrative more apt and depressing for this and the last 19 years of school shootings than "Adult with the ability and responsibility to do something while the young and their chaperones are slaughtered chooses instead to do nothing".
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
You don't have to say it explicitly. When you're saying that gun control is too hard and we shouldn't do it then it's rather implicit in what that means. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution, there is no middle ground in this.
They didn't interpret anything wildly different. Miller was literally the first and only other supreme court case to directly challenge the 2nd amendment before Heller. And it's ruling was only on a specific variant of a specific firearm, already restricted by federal legislation, on the basis that it served no military purpose. On that alone, Heller should've succeed, as there is and was no federal legislation banning any form of handgun at all, and handguns have been a standard military sidearm since before Colt created his Single Action Army. No reading of any second amendment law, or of Miller, would've supported a ban on an entire class of firearms.
Yeah I remember the last guy to say "You're either with us or you're against us." That worked out great.
Anakin?
Such a long time ago...
"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters" Matthew 12:30
It's a pretty common turn of phrase. I mean I can look at a Bible and see Jesus saying it too.
The different is the context. Gun control or anti-gun control. There's no middle ground possible here, it's two opposing ideologies and they are going to keep fighting until only one remains.
No they absolutely did. For exactly the reason I already listed: Heller throws away half the text of the 2nd amendment. There is a huge difference in what both of them cover.
Heller is new precedent. End of story.
It's more than two sides.
Outright banning of all fire arms, banning of assault weapons, banning of anything not a pistol, banning of anything semi-auto or above, stricter background checks, national registry, etc etc.
Someone can be for stricter gun control laws, but not believe in banning of all firearms. That doesn't put them in the anti-gun control side.
And again, at no time in the past 242 years has militia membership been an actual requirement for owning a firearm. It had always been implicit that, in order to be in an armed citizen militia, you actually had to first own a firearm, thus personal ownership was legal. All Heller did was say "Yep."
Gun control is the middle ground. Unrestricted ownership vs. outright ban are the two sides. Regulation, restriction, that's the compromise in the middle.
An entire party, the one in power, doesn't want any compromise. So fuck us I guess right?
This is a remarkably incorrect understanding of what private fire arms ownership laws have been like in US history.
Yes, they did. Your inability to acknowledge the existence of lower courts or of previous SCOTUS decisions is rather strange.
The US has a long history of gun laws and case law on gun laws. It wasn't until the current court that the interpretation leaned the way it does now. And that was a deliberate strategy on the party of conservative groups to stack the courts and bring cases to bear to establish that reinterpretation.
Miller: The 2nd amendment must be interpreted in the light of maintaining the militia.
Heller: The 2nd is an individual right, the militia clause is irrelevant.
That is a SUBSTANTIAL difference, as the Heller dissent points out, and it makes a major difference in case law. There is nothing in Miller supporting your argument at all. There is no several hundred years, you're pulling that our of your ass. Gun precedent is sparse and pre Heller very much on the gun control arguments side.
You mean how you could just buy a shotgun from the Sears Roebuck catalog? How Oswald got his Mannilicher dropped off at his front door? How until 1938 you didn't need a license to manufacture, import or sell firearms, and felons could still openly purchase and possess them? How until 1968 you didn't have to go through a dealer to sell a gun of any kind interstate? The quantity of available guns was lower, but the ownership of them was no different.
Don't forget McDonald which then rules against previous interpretation by saying states are restricted as well.
Miller: The 2nd amendment must be interpreted in the light of maintaining the militia.
Heller: The 2nd is an individual right, the militia clause is irrelevant.
That is a SUBSTANTIAL difference, as the Heller dissent points out, and it makes a major difference in case law. There is nothing in Miller supporting your argument at all.
How you had to lock your guns at the town gate? How you could be *executed* for giving a gun to the wrong person? (That one was, no surprise, racist as shit) How many towns outright banned pistols? We're talking what was legal here, not what they chose to do.
Not always. Gun laws used to be quite strict at the state level. Limits on the storage of powder (including requiring anything in excess of a small amount to be stored in the public magazine), storage of weapons, ownership of weapons (admittedly racist as hell in the case I found), ownership of types of weapons (for instance, an absolute prohibition on any weapon small enough to be concealed), carry of weapons (concealed carry outright prohibited in many states), etc.
Loony gun laws are fairly recent.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I'm not sure what the argument is here. The racist laws were bad, town limit laws existed mostly before federal age/criminal status requirements and due to the lack of police presence, giving a gun to the wrong person can still get you sent to jail. We've passed federal laws to address these? And none of them had any bearing on whether the owner was in a militia or not.
Eh. I feel heartened by recent developments. These kids are inspiring. I prefer ignoring the usual dishonest bullshit that ignores history and evidence to protect america's ridiculous and deadly gun culture and instead focus on some people who know wtf they are talking about and using their moment in the spotlight to try and save some lives.
Things are looking up, even if only a bit.
I'm saying that there were very strict gun laws in specific places. Up to and including outright bans. Heller is new precedent, substantially changing the way the 2nd amendment, and thus allowable gun laws, are handled. I'm saying the idea of some 200+ year precedent around gun laws is a myth.
(And in some cases revisionist history)
They were specific gun laws in specific places at the time because there wasn't an overall federal law that applied. If some guys on horses rode into town with pistols on their hip in 1887, there was no way to tell if they were just passing through or wanted criminals looking to rob the place. Of course having a local law that said guns had to be turned in made sense then. Or a town without the manpower or resources to regulate ownership on its own without a federal baseline. Today, if someone walks into a bar in Texas with a gun on their hip, aside from thinking they're nuts to want to open carry, chances are they aren't there to rob the place due to federal laws that exist for gun ownership. I'm not saying there was 200+ years of precedent, I'm saying for 200+ years, personal ownership was generally accepted as completely legal. Precedent hadn't been set because it hadn't ever really been challenged the way DC and Chicago challenged it. And if Heller had set such a precedent, the AR bans in California and several northeastern states, the magazine bans, none of them could exist. It in no way said you can own anything you want, even Scalia's majority opinion stated it in no way was to be taken as a blanket approval of all ownership of everything, it just said that yes, the legality of personal ownership is the interpretation, and a blanket ban on an entire type of firearm that is universally accepted as usable for self defense isn't legal.
Edit: and Heller established it as an individual right..that's not the same as making it unlimited. That interpretation you mention at the end? That's the new part. It specifically contradicts Miller.
I fuckin swear every one of my feeds, fuckin jumped, jumped at the deaths of 17 children, too say they aren't enough to do anything. fuckin any little thing about acctually preventing it. Just saying oh well this is life now. We should just make the scene less safe by making it a total shootout every time. No way we should make it a little bit more difficult for me to get and keep my gun.
Its just the most depraved gutless shit I've seen in my whole life.
The ruling didn't say "generally accepted as legal" it said that it was overwhelmingly chosen for lawful self defense, and banning it would amount to preventing lawful self defense, which wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Going strictly with Miller would've been even more explicitly on Heller's side though, as Miller said the ONLY guns the 2nd protects are those with military value. And handguns undeniably have military value. If we're using Miller as a baseline for types of weapons the 2nd protects, FOPA should be overturned and automatics should be legal for sale again.
The ruling didn't say generally accepted as legal. You did. I can find bans much, much more strict than anything DC ever did. Never challenged, and it's not like the Supreme Court sat around doing nothing for the 19th century. Gun laws very rarely were ever challenged, which is why precedent is so rare. That argues very strongly *against* this idea that the 2nd codified an individual right to firearms. Cities and towns were free to restrict them as they wished. The point of Miller vs Heller is that Miller established that the 2nd amendment is in place for militia purposes, where Heller throws that and the entire first part of the 2nd out and calls it an individual right. This is new.
:edit: and that personal ownership had generally been accepted as legal, which it had.
Re italics again, not correct. No Supreme Court cases, and state after state of gun bans and heavy regulations. Including handgun bans more strict than anything DC had. And no, that is not the first time it had been challenged as an individual right. Just because some places didn't regulate doesn't mean they didn't have the authority, and federal legislation has nothing to do with what the 2nd amendment covers.
Again, this is Miller:
It is not related to the militia, it is not covered by the 2nd amendment. End of story.
EDIT: cites
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp mostly page 62 here, it is naturally hard to look some of this shit up.
EDIT2: Heller, dissent '
Later:
EDIT: Last one.
If that's accurate I find it extremely telling that the 2nd amendment was never even *mentioned* during discussion of a gun control bill.
...handguns have military/militia value. Miller explicitly supports Heller on the handgun ban portion. Heller is the first time personal ownership was brought to the supreme court. Like literally every other supreme court ruling in history, what states have ruled ceases to matter once the supreme court overrides them. It's... the whole point of having a supreme court. All 50 states could've individually said handguns were illegal, if the supreme court says they're accepted as useful for legal self defense and thus are legal, they have to comply. Aside from race-based state laws that banned gun possession unless approved by a sheriff/some kind of authority in order to ensure only white people had guns, all of which predate the 1934 NFA, I'm not aware of any states that have ever banned handguns, including DC as it's not a state, and the Chicago ban was limited to Chicago, not the state of Illinois. Federal legislation has everything to do with what the 2nd amendment covers, because it's quite literally the law of the land.
I know this is old hat, but I'm pretty sure that reads as 10-40% of teachers eventually carrying and not a 10-40% bonus.
The bonus is mentioned but not specified
Come Overwatch with meeeee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia
I don't understand your point here. Just because the second amendment was considered to be a group right didn't mean that guns were outlawed for people who were not in a militia.
If the second amendment is erased tomorrow it would not make owning guns illegal.
That's the thing though, your opinion on guns does not matter the only opinion on guns that matters is the NRA. You may as well just copy from their website and paste it here because THAT is your opinion on guns, full stop. As a gun advocate, you have no voice because the NRA owns your voice. Every time you vote for an NRA-supported candidate, you are ceding your voice to the NRA because the NRA owns them. Until you and others take down the NRA or their GOP lackeys and the judges they got seated, your opinion on guns DOES NOT MATTER.