United States v. Miller ----

[Laxguy59]

I don't mean this to sound judgmental or like an ass- ok? I really don't.

So saying that, reading this thread, it strikes me how much the replies sound like the sentences of subjects and not free men.

do you have the right to breathe? Yes? Did the Supreme court tell you that you could? Is there an article in the Bill of Rights that says so? Of course not. It's inherent. you didn't have to be told to breathe, any more than you have to be told you're free. you were made to be free.

and that being said, what does it matter how the supreme court rules when it's out of natural law? The 2nd says "shall not be infringed." That's a strong statement. There is NOTHING left to interpretation. Notice that the 2nd doesn't mention sporting arms. You know why? Because it's such an inherent right that it was beyond the scope of the Bill of Rights, like breathing. The point of the 2nd is clearly to defned against tyranny to keep this nation free. What arms are needed to achieve that is determined by what arms seek to usurp that freedom.

You do know that Switzerland canons have crew served weapons that the civilians are trained to use, right?

Minguns and grenade launchers? sure. what's the issue there? With great freedom comes great responsibility. Ever shoot tannerite? Tell me that a 5 pound tannerite "target" is different that the 40mm grenade. It's not.

I've been to ranges where miniguns were shot. It's still about shot placement.

Neither we, nor the USSC has the right to infringe upon anothers right to bear arms.

If you can afford a battleship, good for you. It's your responsibility to utilize it in a manner that doesn't harm anothers person or property.

does freedom and liberty have a boundary beyond morals?

We are taking about legal precedence, not right and wrong.

 

[Hasselhoss]

I don't mean this to sound judgmental or like an ass- ok? I really don't.

So saying that, reading this thread, it strikes me how much the replies sound like the sentences of subjects and not free men.

do you have the right to breathe? Yes? Did the Supreme court tell you that you could? Is there an article in the Bill of Rights that says so? Of course not. It's inherent. you didn't have to be told to breathe, any more than you have to be told you're free. you were made to be free.

and that being said, what does it matter how the supreme court rules when it's out of natural law? The 2nd says "shall not be infringed." That's a strong statement. There is NOTHING left to interpretation. Notice that the 2nd doesn't mention sporting arms. You know why? Because it's such an inherent right that it was beyond the scope of the Bill of Rights, like breathing. The point of the 2nd is clearly to defned against tyranny to keep this nation free. What arms are needed to achieve that is determined by what arms seek to usurp that freedom.

You do know that Switzerland canons have crew served weapons that the civilians are trained to use, right?

Minguns and grenade launchers? sure. what's the issue there? With great freedom comes great responsibility. Ever shoot tannerite? Tell me that a 5 pound tannerite "target" is different that the 40mm grenade. It's not.

I've been to ranges where miniguns were shot. It's still about shot placement.

Neither we, nor the USSC has the right to infringe upon anothers right to bear arms.

If you can afford a battleship, good for you. It's your responsibility to utilize it in a manner that doesn't harm anothers person or property.

does freedom and liberty have a boundary beyond morals?

That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing a specific case, the argument used by the US Attorney and the Supreme Court Decision on that case. The findings and decision should have had a greater affect on the gun laws of this country. Whether or not you find gun laws, in general, unconstitutional is not the issue.

 

[SOLGardener]

O.k., I guess I missed that, and while I reread to see what I missed, I still don't see how precedence matters with this USSC. They've shown that they are not following case law. It was a military qualifier in US vs. Miller and a sporting qualifier since Bush EO'89.

I don't see how USSC rulings determine whether something is unconstitutional or not.

Must be over my head. I'll go to the tin foil hat section

 

[bwysong]

Slippery slope of a mess. Do you really want that many suppressors and FA weapons in the hands of some of these people? Miniguns, Grenade Launchers and associated?

Why not they could before NFA? I'm of the opinion that a gun is a gun no matter how destructive it is they all need respect. A pellet rifle can kill you dead as much as a grenade could. We should regulate the people not the guns.

On another note the NFA was so that they could get criminals for tax evasion not regulate guns.

And another the second amendment was intended to regulate people not guns.

Just my .02 we welcome yours...

 

[Hasselhoss]

O.k., I guess I missed that, and while I reread to see what I missed, I still don't see how precedence matters with this USSC. They've shown that they are not following case law. It was a military qualifier in US vs. Miller and a sporting qualifier since Bush EO'89.

I don't see how USSC rulings determine whether something is unconstitutional or not.

Must be over my head. I'll go to the tin foil hat section

You are technically right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. That did not come about until 1803 with Marbury vs. Madison. Once done, however, it stuck.

 

[mkdhotrod]

Why not they could before NFA? I'm of the opinion that a gun is a gun no matter how destructive it is they all need respect. A pellet rifle can kill you dead as much as a grenade could. We should regulate the people not the guns.

On another note the NFA was so that they could get criminals for tax evasion not regulate guns.

And another the second amendment was intended to regulate people not guns.

Just my .02 we welcome yours...

A pellet can kill you just as much as a grenade? Really? What kind of pellets have you bought that have a 15meter kill radius?

 

[mkdhotrod]

Two things. The infantry don't carry 10" shotguns. We carry the pistol grip 18" mossberg 500's. and hardly ever at that. Not much breaching in Afghanistan.

And regular units have suppressors too. Just usually in the scout platoons, if they have the funds available. I've seen them in the 101st and 10th mountain. The 82d didn't be ause we spend all our money on airborne operations.

Not trying to sharpshoot you, just figured I would put it out there

I have never seen a mossberg 500, just the 870 10 incher. As far as infantry is concerned, Im not in a infantry/scout unit, Im sure every BCT has their own SOP.

 

[Ken Ford]

Slippery slope of a mess. Do you really want that many suppressors and FA weapons in the hands of some of these people? Miniguns, Grenade Launchers and associated?

Actually?... Yes

 

[bwysong]

A pellet can kill you just as much as a grenade? Really? What kind of pellets have you bought that have a 15meter kill radius?

some darn special ones...

the point that I had was when you are dead it doesn't much matter what kills you.

Before we get too far of base.

the USSC should rule on the matter but should not change the way it was originally interpreted IMO

 

[HomeAlone]

With the Justices that sit on the bench today? nah