Liberal Forum

maineman » 21 Feb 2023, 4:36 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 4:36 pm

his words speak for themselves.  I take it there were too many of them, and they were probably all too big for you to actually read, eh?

The term “the people” is employed multiple times in the text of the Bill of Rights, and each time it protects an individual right, not some mythical collective right.  For example, it’s facially absurd to suggest that the First Amendment somehow protects the rights of a collective or government entity, or that the Fourth Amendment protects some collective or government entity against unreasonable searches and seizures.  Yet Burger and other Second Amendment restrictionists ask us to accept that the Second Amendment somehow stands unique as a sole exception? 

Indeed, the Tenth Amendment specifically and separately distinguishes between states and “the people” in its text when it references “to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Thus, the Framers were perfectly capable of referring to state authorities when they so chose, and could have done so in the Second Amendment if that’s what they intended. 

That’s not Burger’s only error in interpreting “the very language of the Second Amendment,” however.  Had the Supreme Court actually taken a case interpreting the Second Amendment as the Court did in 2008, he might’ve had the opportunity to understand as the Heller majority did that the term “militia” at the time of ratification referred to all able-bodied men, not some hypothetical “state army” that he references.

 Burger then descends to straw man argumentation when he asserts that the Second Amendment wasn’t “intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to avoid any kind of weapon he or she desires.” 

Which pro-Second Amendment scholar has ever advanced such a claim?

 As the Heller majority explicitly stated, the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms doesn’t mean that no restrictions are permissible.  To illustrate by analogy, the First Amendment protects an individual right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean that defamation laws are unconstitutional.  Similarly, the Fourth Amendment protects an individual right against unreasonable searches and seizures, but that doesn’t mean that warrant exceptions are unconstitutional.

 Accordingly, the fact that some restrictions withstand constitutional scrutiny doesn’t in any way undermine the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not some hypothetical collective right. 

Finally, there’s an amusing paradox and glaring intellectual inconsistency among Second Amendment restrictionists who assert the discredited “collective right” argument that Burger stated. 

Namely, on the one hand they seek to outlaw so-called “assault” weapons and “military-grade” firearms.  Yet on the other hand they claim that the Second Amendment was ratified to protect only “state armies” in Burger’s words.  But taking that argument to its logical end, “assault” weapons and “military-grade” firearms would be precisely the ones most protected by the Second Amendment, since they’d be precisely the types of weapons useful to those hypothetical “state armies.” 

https://cfif.org/v/mobile/#commentaryPost:4683
 

Z09 » 21 Feb 2023, 4:50 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 4:50 pm

Beto O'Rourke said he's coming for your guns...
door to door...

Hope he pulls into your driveway first...

 

ConsRule » 22 Feb 2023, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 11:20 am

In your opinion.  But if that makes you feel superior, I'm happy for you.

Here's some floss for that.

RebelGator » 21 Feb 2023, 7:24 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 7:24 pm

You're just an actor Wilford, not even on par with a type cast Ned Beatty, though I'm sure that scene from Deliverance could have done by you with gusto.

   

maineman » 21 Feb 2023, 7:48 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 7:48 pm

I do have guns in my home.   And I have no problem with government regulation of gun owners like me.  And I assume that, after spending a quarter of a century IN a naval uniform, I would be considered an emeritus member of the Maine naval militia should it ever be constituted.

did you carry while on duty?
 

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 10:58 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 10:58 am

More assertions.

They aren't worth reading...

Please stop yapping....You lost....repeatedly....

Facts.  

House passed H.R.1808, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022

The House bill includes a grandfather clause, so current owners of such firearms would be allowed to keep them. The grandfather clause is similar to the 10-year ban that was included in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That ban expired in 2004.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/propo ... gKN8_D_BwE

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
• A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
• Detachable magazine.

The law also categorically banned the following makes and models of semi-automatic firearms and any copies or duplicates of them, in any caliber:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban
 
 

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 11:41 am

Facts.  

House passed H.R.1808, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022

The House bill includes a grandfather clause, so current owners of such firearms would be allowed to keep them. The grandfather clause is similar to the 10-year ban that was included in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That ban expired in 2004.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/propo ... gKN8_D_BwE

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
• A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
• Detachable magazine.

The law also categorically banned the following makes and models of semi-automatic firearms and any copies or duplicates of them, in any caliber:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban

In support of what?

Warcok » 21 Feb 2023, 8:18 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 8:18 pm

You're a load your mother should've swallowed

 
 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9KLy7wecy-U

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 11:44 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 11:44 am

In support of what?

Here are some more facts concerning the 1994 ban that was basically all appearance: (that is the answer to your queston)

The AR-15 used to be illegal. President Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban, which was in effect from 1994 to 2004, banned the AR-15 and other guns that were too similar to military-style weapons. However, this law did not prohibit Americans from owning semi-automatic weapons;1 it capped how many military features an individual gun could have. During the ban, a semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 could legally have any one of the following features, as long as it didn’t have two or more of them: a folding stock (making the gun slightly easier to conceal), a pistol grip (making the weapon easier to hold and use), a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor (making it harder to see where shots are coming from), or a grenade launcher.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gu ... ly-banned/

Nothing affecting the function was banned.  

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 10:03 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 10:03 am

That is the only reason for the past ban in 94 and current proposals.  All the bans that get discussed are based on external features.  None address function.  

Modern semi automatics are not designed for combat.  We have been over this.

@Blackvegetable  

In support of this.  

ScottMon » 21 Feb 2023, 8:20 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2023, 8:20 pm

Pretty sure that our founding fathers intended folks to be armed to act as a militia against tyranny of the British invaders.   You know, an "Army."

 

This link will explain what a featureless AR style weapon is:

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/featureless-ar-15-rifle/

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 8:14 am

Burger was a Republican who was appointed chief justice of the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon in 1969 and served for 17 years until 1986. In retirement in 1991, Burger said that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

https://youtu.be/Eya_k4P-iEo

https://theintercept.com/2022/06/24/sup ... ent-bruen/

https://cfif.org/v/mobile/#commentaryPost:4683

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 11:48 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 11:48 am

Here are some more facts concerning the 1994 ban that was basically all appearance: (that is the answer to your queston)

The AR-15 used to be illegal. President Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban, which was in effect from 1994 to 2004, banned the AR-15 and other guns that were too similar to military-style weapons. However, this law did not prohibit Americans from owning semi-automatic weapons;1 it capped how many military features an individual gun could have. During the ban, a semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 could legally have any one of the following features, as long as it didn’t have two or more of them: a folding stock (making the gun slightly easier to conceal), a pistol grip (making the weapon easier to hold and use), a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor (making it harder to see where shots are coming from), or a grenade launcher.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gu ... ly-banned/

Nothing affecting the function was banned.

The AR-15 used to be illegal. President Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban, which was in effect from 1994 to 2004, banned the AR-15 and other guns that were too similar to military-style weapons.


weapons developed for purposes of combat.

Yes...we've covered this.

ROG62 » 22 Feb 2023, 11:56 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 11:56 am

https://cfif.org/v/mobile/#commentaryPost:4683

and?

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 11:50 am

This link will explain what a featureless AR style weapon is:

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/featureless-ar-15-rifle/

Why do you idiots keep posting ammosexual propaganda?

Oh, yea....citations keep biting you in the ***.
 

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 11:49 am

@Blackvegetable  

In support of this.

But that has nothing to do with the purpose or design



 

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:00 pm

The AR-15 used to be illegal. President Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban, which was in effect from 1994 to 2004, banned the AR-15 and other guns that were too similar to military-style weapons.

weapons developed for purposes of combat.

Yes...we've covered this.

I guess that was too much for you to read.  You should have kept going.  You are not a smart "man".

You failed to read this part:

However, this law did not prohibit Americans from owning semi-automatic weapons;1 it capped how many military features an individual gun could have. 

You should have kept reading.  

@Vegas  

Although the Sporter was not designed for the purpose of combat ANY "AR" style weapon made after 1977 by any other manufacture that was not Colt was designed for civilian use. 

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 12:02 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:02 pm

Why do you idiots keep posting ammosexual propaganda?

Oh, yea....citations keep biting you in the ***.

That is called a featureless AR and is compliant with the 1994 act as well as most states with such a ban, like CA.  

That citation did not bite me in the ***.  Again, you have no clue what you are talking about.  Here is another:

https://grizzlyfirearmsinc.net/ca-compl ... ashington/



CA Compliant AR15 5.56 -- Tungsten Washington

GRIZZLY FIREARMS INC  $1,500.00

Your running off at the mouth is biting you in the ***. 
 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 12:04 pm

But that has nothing to do with the purpose or design

We have a thread discussing that.  At the moment we are discussing provision of past, present, and proposed bans.  You are losing, bigly.