Yeah, actually, civilians sometimes DO need 'assault weapons.'
Posted on 06/16/2016 1:07:31 PM PDT by Winged Hussar
QUOTE OF THE DAY!
I made this point on a different media outlet when someone called for a ban on "military grade" weapons. I showed some pictures, including the AR-15, of weapons and told her to let me know which of these are considered Military Grade weapons. (Benelli, Browning, Remington). Before she could respond, another poster pointed out that the autoloading hunting rifles were far more lethal than the AR-15. They just didn't look as scary. She quit posting.
Sure they can, I happen to legally own some.
You just need a wheelbarrow of cash for the weapon, permission from the 'King' to exercise your 'right' and pay a $200 tax.
Most any long gun that isn’t 22LR is more deadly than an AR15! That’s one of the funniest part of this whole “high-power AR15” whine we’re hearing.
The reason why they are so deadly in these mass shootings is that NO ONE ever fights back. They just line up and wait for the bullet. They watch TV and learn from “experts” that a single man with an AR can’t mow down a room full of people in 5 seconds and they think, “I can’t beat him. Maybe he’ll get bored and leave before he kills me”.
Where is the “Let’s roll!” spirit?
Oh, well. Adapt and overcome.
guns have saved my life
Your saying this makes you a pompous, hypocrite.
Congress has the ability and authority to eliminate the civilian sale of these weapons of war
No they don't,,,, read this you fool:
It says: Any Two or More Persons - who conspire to deprive a citizen of a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (like the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights), may be held personally responsible for damages. If these public officials conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate ANY PERSON in ANY STATE, Territory or District in the free exercise of any Right secured to him by the Constitution of the United States, that public servant(s) can be found guilty, and can be punished by up to 10 years in jail.
Do not pass go, do not collect your $200, just go to jail you idiot.
CJ
In 1939, the Supreme Court of the United States in _Miller_ denied the claim of a defendant that certain provisions of Federal law regulating the possession of certain firearms was Unconstitutional. The reason the Court denied the claim is crucial to the current debate over Federal and State regulation of firearms, and the meaning of the Second Amendment according to the Supreme Court. [By the way, the _Heller_ decision did not overturn or modify the decision in _Miller,_ which therefore remains binding precedent. The two decisions are completely compatible.]
To understand the Court’s decision in _Miller,_ one must first comprehend how the _Miller_ Court interpreted the Second Amendment:
SCOTUS: “The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power —
_To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress._
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out “that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom,” and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.” ~ United States v. Miller (No. 696) 26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed. [Decided: May 15, 1939]
If that’s how the Court interpreted the Second Amendment, then why did it deny the defendant’s claim that the Federal laws regulating firearms at the time were Unconstitutional?
The reason was clearly *not,* as has often been falsely claimed, that the _Miller_ Court concluded that the Second Amendment did not grant an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Instead, the Court explained its reason this way:
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.”
In other words, no evidence had been entered into the official record of the case proving that the weapon possessed by the defendant (a shotgun with a a barrel length of less than 18”) was “any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
The Court interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to keep and bear _military grade_ firearms, and as far as it knew based on the evidence presented, a short-barreled shotgun was not “ordinary military equipment,” nor was it useful for the common defense of the nation.
So the defendant lost the case solely because his firearm wasn’t—in the opinion of the Court in the absence of any evidence on the subject in the official record of the case—a military grade weapon useful for “the common defense.”
Therefore, per current binding Supreme Court precedent, any outright prohibitions of firearms that qualify as “ordinary military equipment” or that would be useful “for the common defense” are Unconstitutional.
If TSHTF, and I have a choice, should I grab the AR-15 or the M1 Garand? They’re in the same cabinet.
I’m fully aware of the differences and my comment was made as humor..........
Yeah, actually, civilians sometimes DO need 'assault weapons.'
Seth’s a knob-polishing cock-knocker.
I wondered why in searching bios there’s no mention of a wife and children, and the guy’s almost 40.
Loves abortion, Obama, gun control, everything comes into focus.
Dingy Harry looked for someone normal to push their agenda and Seth was the best they could do.
Back in the day calling your rifle a gun could get you a good head thumping by the D.I.
Wish that I had included those words in my reply to the news rag. Dang.
Depends, what kind of fecal matter is hitting the rotary air distributor?
I have a FAL and a Saiga 12 shotgun - pretty much have it all covered. :D
The rifle used in Orlando was NOT an assault weapon
You’d think a soldier would know the difference between a gun and a rifle and fully auto vs semi auto
Looks like the congressman served honorably during multiple tours.
His wiki page trumpets his record and decorations, with quotes from Moulton saying vets look down on trumpeting your record. Hmm.
Well, no matter. While I respect his service, he’s become an idiot when it comes to our Constitution.
For what it’s worth, I’m a Marine vet. Doesn’t change a bad opinion I may hold.
Hell, Hitler was a combat vet, too, and a gun control advocate.
If the AR-15 is in .308 I think I would grab that one. But, there’s a reason God gave you two hands.
Bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
