Who'sYourData? Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 410 Content Count: 19,525 Reputation: 992 Days Won: 24 Joined: 09/01/2006 Share Posted June 14, 2016 1 hour ago, JTrue said: But Trump told us the Democrats are trying to repeal the entire 2nd amendment. Who am I supposed to believe?!? None of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paisa el Toro Posted June 16, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 132 Content Count: 10,380 Reputation: 1,058 Days Won: 18 Joined: 08/11/2003 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Somehow I don't think the founders intended or even contemplated citizens having AR-15's as part of the "right to bear arms." Here's a clip to keep the discussion going: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apis Bull Posted June 17, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 1,586 Content Count: 23,185 Reputation: 2,332 Days Won: 65 Joined: 09/05/2002 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. This was patented in 1718: https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1483681 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fold FB Invest in BB Posted June 17, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 76 Content Count: 6,712 Reputation: 1,131 Days Won: 17 Joined: 09/07/2009 Share Posted June 17, 2016 11 hours ago, Apis Bull said: Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. This was patented in 1718: https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1483681 From the manufacturer Quote Puckle advertised its main application as an anti-boarding gun for use on ships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun If the argument can be made that the AR-15 has "no reasonable place to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", then it could go the way of the sawed-off shotgun. Quote In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment Whether or not that argument will be successful probably hinges upon the views next supreme court justice, which may be a while given that the senate refuses to do their job and approve/disapprove a a candidate, you know, since they're soooo busy with other stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who'sYourData? Posted June 27, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 410 Content Count: 19,525 Reputation: 992 Days Won: 24 Joined: 09/01/2006 Share Posted June 27, 2016 Very little hinges on the next Supreme Court justice. The Supreme Court has already ruled (very surprisingly, but that is another story) that the second amendment allows individuals the right to own guns. However, the Supreme Court has also ruled that the second amendment does not mean that everyone can have any kind of gun under any circumstance. Basically, limiting who can have guns and how that is managed is specific to laws created by Congress as long as the laws don't become overly restrictive. We had an assualt weapons ban in this country for ten years, and more restrictive gun policies that were all passed and championed under the ultra convservative Reagan administration. In fact, at the time it was liberals complaining about gun bans and not conservatives. Politics is funny business. These laws (which have expired or been revoked) were never found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. They have gone away over the last 30 years or so due to intense lobbying by the NRA, who has managed a brilliant marketing campaign on behalf of gun manufacturers in this country to convince people this is a constitutional issue, which it really isn't. What a great country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paisa el Toro Posted July 8, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 132 Content Count: 10,380 Reputation: 1,058 Days Won: 18 Joined: 08/11/2003 Share Posted July 8, 2016 On 6/14/2016 at 11:45 AM, JTrue said: But Trump told us the Democrats are trying to repeal the entire 2nd amendment. Who am I supposed to believe?!? On 6/14/2016 at 1:11 PM, Who'sYourData? said: None of them. Or Gary Johnson. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now