Know your gun rights history

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

If you can lift 248lbs, do you really need any weapons?

(that's without ammo too)

[rocks 494]

(that's without ammo too)

How much does that weigh?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Yes, because the NRA are such a great organization with morals. They need to be regulated by the government because they are crazy...

so, crazy people need regulation by the government?

hello, sean penn!

[rocks 494]

so, crazy people need regulation by the government?

hello, sean penn!

Yes, Sean Penn should definitely be regulated by the govt. Madonna too.

[Harsh_77 718]

Yes, because the NRA are such a great organization with morals. They need to be regulated by the government because they are crazy...

can say the same about anti Gun lobby too... they are crazy.

They have this idea lodged in their brain the Guns are dangerous.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

How much does that weigh?

grab a side and take a guess.

[rocks 494]

can say the same about anti Gun lobby too... they are crazy.

They have this idea lodged in their brain the Guns are dangerous.

Is that the best you have? The NRA are crazy, you can't dispute that.

grab a side and take a guess.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

What I find weird is that McReynold's opinion could potentially be interpreted as saying that all handguns and rifles for the civilian market only could be regulated while something like an AR15 or a drum fed shotgun should be completely and utterly unregulated.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Sousuke

[DaveE 178]

"It was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security,” meaning the army. Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes, but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Supreme Court agreed, unanimously".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is as close to a lie as you can get. What the Solicitor General said had no bearing or relationship to the case. The only truth to the statement above is that it was a unanimous decision. What really happened:

In the inital case (transporting a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches). The Federal judge threw the case out with a one sentence decision:

"The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, '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.'" Justice Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons".

The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1.The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury. Ahhh the old tax clause

2.The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce. Ahhh the commerce clause

3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

4.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

What the court said in its decision:

"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." Basically they said they don't know.

What the court said about militia:

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[DaveE 178]

grab a side and take a guess.

Dammit stop - I used to build them for living when I was on active duty. Actually I started on the predecessor of the M61A1, the plain old M61 in the F-105.

[Harsh_77 718]

Is that the best you have? The NRA are crazy, you can't dispute that.

They are crazy about protecting their rights....

[rocks 494]

Dammit stop - I used to build them for living when I was on active duty. Actually I started on the predecessor of the M61A1, the plain old M61 in the F-105.

The question is, can you lift one?

[DaveE 178]

The question is, can you lift one?

I used to be able to, without the ammo drum. Times have changed though lol.

[rocks 494]

I used to be able to, without the ammo drum. Times have changed though lol.

OK, then you are still eligible to own a weapon. Congrats.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Jesus believes in gun rights.