Piston Slapper Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Prove it. Step 1: Make people register firearm Step 2: Ban firearms you don't like Step 3: You now have a database to find the people/guns you don't like... profit? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/swiss-arms-classic-green-rifle-ban-to-be-reviewed-by-government-1.2555746 http://www.cleveland.com/sun/all/index.ssf/2013/01/attempted_gun_confiscation_tri.html You can just google the rest, here are some hints: UK confiscation 1997, Australia's "buyback" confiscation 96-97... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 State doesn't equal Federal and I actually support those initiatives because they are enforcing laws that were put in place by the public. And do you really want to go down the path of debating US History? I lived in Boston - on Bunker Hill for that matter - for 2 years and grew up on the East coast and it was a specific area of interest as a boy. The weapons cache under consideration here were not owned by individuals but instead were a supply for the colonial militia. As such, we're talking about a dispute between the patriots and a Tory governor about who owned those weapons. Apples to oranges. Keep trying though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Ah yes, if we can't get someone to agree with us because our arguments are unsound we punish them. Sorry Howard but I won't be cowed by your efforts here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piston Slapper Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 So you support confiscating six shot .22 rimfire target revolvers "to protect the childrens" but allowing 5 shot ones because they're perfectly safe? You support illegal confiscations done using registrations after registrations were allowed only because people like you said there'd never be confiscation? You support depriving citizens of entire cities and states of their constitutionally protected rights because some politicians were power hungry or bribed? How do you live with yourself? How do you not realize that is hypocritical of what you've said earlier in this thread? I mean, you just admitted to supporting the very thing you were arguing wouldn't and couldn't happen. This is why gun control advocates have zero credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Ah Howard, you've hurt my feelings now. I don't think I'll ever recover from your -1's. I've already said I support weapons restrictions and I've explained very rational reasons why. They weren't illegal confiscations. They were enforcement of the law. If you don't like the law, vote and make your voice heard. There's a distinct difference between a public decision to put restrictions on weapons and a dictatorship deciding to register and then confiscate illegal weapons. You're just unhappy because I won't accept your NRA arguments that really amount to little more than scare tactics that are seriously lacking in historical validity. Sorry but if you want to find solace I'm sure your friends at gun nuts and HotAir will commiserate with you at what a bastard I am for not seeing the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piston Slapper Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 They weren't illegal confiscations. I'm sorry, I must have missed it when they repealed the 2nd amendment. Oh, wait, they didn't! Yes, those confiscations were illegal. Any law that blatantly infringes on constitutional rights is not a legitimate law. Those guns were not legally confiscated, they were stolen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Ah, now we're going to debate exactly what the Second Amendment means. I was waiting for you to pull that one out. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Define Arms. Define the purpose of those Arms within the context of the Framers' drafting of that sentence. Further, define how this operates in the context of Federal versus States' rights to regulate said Arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 (edited) Define Arms. Define the purpose of those Arms within the context of the Framers' drafting of that sentence. Well considering both sides back then had similar weapons rifles and cannons. Why should I now not be allowed to own some RPG's, drones, F22's and maybe some nukes? That way I can be on similar ground as da guberment. Edited November 4, 2014 by fivex84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piston Slapper Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Basically, the Second Amendment has been ruled to protect all types of infantry arms in common military usage both past and present. That applies to the states as well due to incorporation under the 14th amendment. Here's the citation for you: n 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. U.S. v. Miller , 307 U.S. at 178 (citing Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn 154, 158) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Yes, see, that is where the extreme view takes us. Unfortunately for you, that's not how the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment in District of Columbia v Heller. Or the lower federal courts of appeals have ruled on similar cases post Heller. All of which have been ruled in the last 6 years whereas the ruling you're citing was in 1939. They've stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and it does not refer to weapons employed in a military capacity. And that in general it was understood that a militia member owned a rifle or a pistol. So restrictions on weapon types that are dangerous or unusual are entirely acceptable. Military weapons owned and used by the military are not restricted. Similar weapons owned and used by citizens can be and historically have been restricted. Got any more softballs to lob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piston Slapper Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Heller didn't overrule Miller and didn't restrict what types of arms the 2A applies to, Miller is still the standard. That's why M16s aren't banned entirely, just registered and taxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Heller didn't overrule Miller and didn't restrict what types of arms the 2A applies to, Miller is still the standard. That's why M16s aren't banned entirely, just registered and taxed. Tax stamp in GA is around $200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Go do a little more studying of the Supreme Court's decisions Howard. I have two close friends who clerked for the Supreme Court, one of whom was clerking for Justice Alito while the court was considering Heller. The ruling didn't say M16's would be restricted. It simply stated that restrictions on weapons could be put in place and have been. And the decisions of the lower Federal courts since then have continued to follow that strain of thought. Your original argument was that confiscations in NY for example were unconstitutional. Post Heller rulings prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Go do a little more studying of the Supreme Court's decisions Howard. I have two close friends who clerked for the Supreme Court, one of whom was clerking for Justice Alito while the court was considering Heller. The ruling didn't say M16's would be restricted. It simply stated that restrictions on weapons could be put in place and have been. And the decisions of the lower Federal courts since then have continued to follow that strain of thought. Your original argument was that confiscations in NY for example were unconstitutional. Post Heller rulings prove otherwise. Googled name drop gif got... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Googled my response: It's not name dropping, it's stating I feel extremely comfortable given my personal discussions with someone who was intimately involved with the decision that Howard is attempting to lecture me on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts