VA Senate passed 3 gun laws today...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Gun nuts be crazy.

Well REGULATED militia. Not private unlimited arsenals. REGULATED.

You're showing your ignorance, I'm afraid. Look up the contextual definition and usage of the term "regulated" for the Colonial-era, and you'll find it has nothing to do with the current interpretation of the word.


#themoreyouknow

So we should abide by rules made for the Colonial era? With time comes progress and with progress comes revision of archaic and outdated rules.

Balderdash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little revolution now and then is a good thing. Infringe upon the greatest governmental document ever written and you may get just that. But, more likely SCOTUS and it’s conservative make up will take care of this without to much furor.

Scalia says suck it.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

That's weird.

Supreme Court Justice Reynolds said in United States vs. Miller "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."

Ahhh...such a cute old-timey...

in 2008:
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment...We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

Womp womp

Funny how you ignored the part where they say the 2A protects weapons suitable for milita use. Aren't AR15s weapons of war?

Womo womp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Gun nuts be crazy.

Well REGULATED militia. Not private unlimited arsenals. REGULATED.

You're showing your ignorance, I'm afraid. Look up the contextual definition and usage of the term "regulated" for the Colonial-era, and you'll find it has nothing to do with the current interpretation of the word.


#themoreyouknow

So we should abide by rules made for the Colonial era? With time comes progress and with progress comes revision of archaic and outdated rules.

The founders are ok with it.

Heck are you aware that piracy is allowed by the Constitution? Article 1, section 8, clause 11.

Plus you can own military aircraft? tanks, artillery, Gatling guns!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little revolution now and then is a good thing. Infringe upon the greatest governmental document ever written and you may get just that. But, more likely SCOTUS and it’s conservative make up will take care of this without to much furor.

Scalia says suck it.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

That's weird.

Supreme Court Justice Reynolds said in United States vs. Miller "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."

Ahhh...such a cute old-timey...

in 2008:
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment...We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

Womp womp

Funny how you ignored the part where they say the 2A protects weapons suitable for milita use. Aren't AR15s weapons of war?

Womo womp

It’s a different court now ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little revolution now and then is a good thing. Infringe upon the greatest governmental document ever written and you may get just that. But, more likely SCOTUS and it’s conservative make up will take care of this without to much furor.

Scalia says suck it.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

That's weird.

Supreme Court Justice Reynolds said in United States vs. Miller "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."

Ahhh...such a cute old-timey...

in 2008:
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment...We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

Womp womp

Funny how you ignored the part where they say the 2A protects weapons suitable for milita use. Aren't AR15s weapons of war?

Womo womp

It’s a different court now ...

The Heller decision protects guns "in common use", and very, very few guns are as commonly owned today as the AR15. More than half the rifles sold last year - all rifles, of every kind - were AR15's. And that's been a trend since the early 2000's, almost twenty years now. There are at least 24,000,000 AR15's out there. They are more numerous than minivans. All minivans that have ever been made, by every car maker that makes minivans.

If that's not "common", than I'm not sure what the word even means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re fine, but meaningless.

The assault weapons ban completely failed. Democrats got cold feet after the weeks of uproar and sanctuary resolutions.

One gun a month is meaningless? How so?

I guess it makes you plan your crime a little further in advance or something.

There's also an exception for concealed handgun permit holders. Those aren't too difficult to get.

Oh really? Guess we better add that to the list.

Glad you acknowledge that this isn't really about safety. It's just about taking guns away from people who aren't criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re fine, but meaningless.

The assault weapons ban completely failed. Democrats got cold feet after the weeks of uproar and sanctuary resolutions.

One gun a month is meaningless? How so?

I guess it makes you plan your crime a little further in advance or something.

There's also an exception for concealed handgun permit holders. Those aren't too difficult to get.

Oh really? Guess we better add that to the list.

Glad you acknowledge that this isn't really about safety. It's just about taking guns away from people who aren't criminals.

I thought they liked background checks? When you get a CHP, you get a background check, and CHP holders are less criminally inclined than the general population at large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:and Just like that, liberties are slowly stripped away while the cost of enforcement continues to rise. I see the founding fathers rolling in their grave.

Don’t you dare presume to speak for the Framers. Unless you are part of a militia, you shouldn’t have any guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re fine, but meaningless.

The assault weapons ban completely failed. Democrats got cold feet after the weeks of uproar and sanctuary resolutions.

One gun a month is meaningless? How so?

I guess it makes you plan your crime a little further in advance or something.

There's also an exception for concealed handgun permit holders. Those aren't too difficult to get.

Oh really? Guess we better add that to the list.

Glad you acknowledge that this isn't really about safety. It's just about taking guns away from people who aren't criminals.

PP just said it’s easy to do the training. So not much of a deterrent for criminals - including people posing as dealers.

And are we defining criminals who acknowledge they would break laws if they are passed (e.g. gun bans)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All gun laws will fail in the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment is clear in the fact that the government is not allowed to restrict citizens' right to bear arms. "Shall NOT be infringed."

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All gun laws will fail in the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment is clear in the fact that the government is not allowed to restrict citizens' right to bear arms. "Shall NOT be infringed."

Thank you.

Scalia said otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All gun laws will fail in the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment is clear in the fact that the government is not allowed to restrict citizens' right to bear arms. "Shall NOT be infringed."

Thank you.

Scalia said otherwise.

Scalia said guns in common use are protected.

That means the scary black semiautomatic guns that you hate and want banned aren't going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All gun laws will fail in the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment is clear in the fact that the government is not allowed to restrict citizens' right to bear arms. "Shall NOT be infringed."

Thank you.

Scalia said otherwise.

Scalia said guns in common use are protected.

That means the scary black semiautomatic guns that you hate and want banned aren't going anywhere.

I don’t want to ban AR-15s.

Here is my wishlist:
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and Just like that, liberties are slowly stripped away while the cost of enforcement continues to rise. I see the founding fathers rolling in their grave.

Don’t you dare presume to speak for the Framers. Unless you are part of a militia, you shouldn’t have any guns.

I will speak for whomever I please as it is my opinion and my right to free speech. See, you are again exhibiting the need to control and strip away rights.

You do note they use the word “militia” and not military or army, right? Militias are civilian by definition.

Yes, the words “regulated” but also “not infringed” are used in the framers written words. So, it is a bit vague. However, here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, the primary “framer”, in order to show at least his state of mind.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... only disarm those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."

By the way, he was quoting someone else here but he said it so it is reasonable to believe he believed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Gun nuts be crazy.

Well REGULATED militia. Not private unlimited arsenals. REGULATED.

You're showing your ignorance, I'm afraid. Look up the contextual definition and usage of the term "regulated" for the Colonial-era, and you'll find it has nothing to do with the current interpretation of the word.


#themoreyouknow

So we should abide by rules made for the Colonial era? With time comes progress and with progress comes revision of archaic and outdated rules.

The founders are ok with it.

Heck are you aware that piracy is allowed by the Constitution? Article 1, section 8, clause 11.

Plus you can own military aircraft? tanks, artillery, Gatling guns!

What about a neutron bomb?