SCOTUS might do the work FineStien cannot

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Ole Cowboy

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    17 Oaks Ranch
    Just so we're clear an artillery piece (Even mobile like the m110) is a crew served weapon as is an Abrams.... Arms are arms... they had no idea what the future would hold, but I bet they even meant that a puckle gun was ok to own for people to have and operate in the interest of militias. The media has already made militia a bad word so we knew that was the direction they were stepping.

    I'm just saying it's hard to take down tyranny when they have drones that can drop hellfires on you from 5k out and all you have is an AR15.
    My reading as nothing but a common man and what I believe the INTENT was this is an INDIVIDUAL God given right to defend ones self and family and to be able to serve in the militia when called upon.

    If you try to construe the 2nd as an unlimited ownership of anything beyond and individual right you run the risk of changing the definition to what kind of weapons we are allowed to . Now the argument REALLY gets in trouble. I can take a M16 class or weapons and the sidearm class (1911, Beretta, Sig etc) and use them to defend my family, hunt etc. But the M110 is not exactly a squirrel gun, or can I employ it to defend my home effectively unless I train my family as FDC, Ammo loaders and my son to be a FO.

    The 2nd does give you the right to create a standing militia. I can no case for crew served weapons and trust me its a path we do not want to try and go down...
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,617
    96
    hill co.
    Do you not believe the intent of the 2A included the defense against a tyrannical government, similar to the situation the founder had just gone through when they wrote the 2A?

    You can argue whether or not it's a legal fight worth fighting, but that's not really the discussion. This discussion started as whether or not the founders believed crew served weapons such as cannons of their time were protected under the 2A. If you believe they were but modern versions of the same should not you are setting a dangerous precedent.
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    I believe it is a moot point arguing whether or not we as citizens should be able to own howitzers and tanks. We are in a battle to keep what we now have, and if that's successful, then we can try to chip away at what we had lost.
     

    karlac

    Lately too damn busy to have Gone fishin' ...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 21, 2013
    11,774
    96
    Houston & Hot Springs
    The wording of the 2A logically dictates that its intent is to insure that the people's right to bear the arms that could meet force, with a like force, in the event it became necessary to the security of a Free state ... there is no "free state", without free men.

    Any other imagined intent or interpretation, other than the insuring the ability to meet force with like force in defense of the free state, and therefore free men, is logically flawed, both militarily or in self defense ... the men who instituted the foresight exhibited in the Constitution were to damned smart to do otherwise.
     
    Last edited:

    Wiliamr

    Well-Known
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 15, 2011
    1,807
    96
    Austin
    upload_2017-11-12_8-46-0.gif
     

    pronstar

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 2, 2017
    10,542
    96
    Dallas
    I'm just saying it's hard to take down tyranny when they have drones that can drop hellfires on you from 5k out and all you have is an AR15.

    True, but resistance fighters using small arms in Iraq, Afghan, Syria and elsewhere sure were/are a PITA for our forces.

    Unless we go back to carpet bombing - and that would include against our own citizens - at some point fighting goes from house to house/CQB.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    Darkpriest667

    Actually Attends
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Jan 13, 2017
    4,489
    96
    Jarrell TX, United States
    True, but resistance fighters using small arms in Iraq, Afghan, Syria and elsewhere sure were/are a PITA for our forces.

    Unless we go back to carpet bombing - and that would include against our own citizens - at some point fighting goes from house to house/CQB.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


    They don't give a shit about civilians when it comes to drone strikes and the Obama administration proved that.


    https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...r-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...efense-of-his-record-on-drone-strikes/511454/

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/05...-numbers-on-drone-strike-civilian-casualties/
     

    schmellba99

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 30, 2008
    104
    11
    Houston & San Antonio
    They keep arguing home defense as if that is what the second amendment says. What part of "necessary to the security of a free state" does it tell me what kind of firearm I can use for home defense?
    No kidding.

    It is a shame that the Federalist Papers are not required reading. Federalist 48 speaks specifically about the 2nd Amendment and what the fuggin founding fathers meant when they drafted it and included it in the BOR, which I am glad they ended up doing. There was actually a huge debate about including right to bear arms in the BOR because, at that time, it was considered such a universal right that wasn't worthy of debate in the first place.

    The entire purpose is to ensure that the citizens have, to a pretty high degree anyway, the same type of firearms that the military would use - to combat that military if it became necessary.
     

    schmellba99

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 30, 2008
    104
    11
    Houston & San Antonio
    I will disagree on this. Here again I go back to the 2nd and what it says: "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."

    Militia: A military force raised from the civilian population, people, individuals.

    bear Arms: To hold arms, guns, rifles, pistols, INDIVIDUAL weapons not crew served.

    This is how I read it under my criteria of being a common man and not a lawyer or politician.

    A good portion of the artillery used by the continental army during the revolution was privately owned.

    Now I would agree that private ownership of nukes, bombs, etc. is not a good idea and would not be for it.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,617
    96
    hill co.
    I'd visit somebody that had DDs (not talking boobs). Would make for some really great range days.
     

    dogbone

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 27, 2017
    288
    46
    Llano County
    SCOTUS denies cert in both Kolbe and Norman cases.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/11/no-new-grants-court-denies-review-gun-rights-cases/

    Perhaps the most noteworthy denials came in two cases involving gun rights: Kolbe v. Hogan, a challenge to Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, passed in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school; and Norman v. Florida, a challenge to the state’s ban on the open carrying of guns in public. In both cases, the lower courts had upheld the states’ bans, so today’s rulings leave those decisions in place.

    As a former Marylander, I am saddened by this lack of a hearing for my brothers and sisters deep in liberal lala-land. Given the court's current make-up, this may be a good thing for the nation as a whole in that the hoplophobia is contained to Maryland and not given a chance to spread farther at the moment.
     

    NavyVet1959

    Curmudgeon Extraordinaire
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 14, 2014
    427
    26
    Texas, ya'll
    The SCOTUS goes through a lot of effort to *keep* from doing any work. Great job, if you can get it -- good pay, choose your own hours, decided what (or even *if*) you do any work...

    With respect to larger destructive weapons, I believe in the absoluteness of the 2nd Amendment. If you believe otherwise, you are on the road down that slippery slope. As far as I'm concerned, a government cannot legally nor morally restrict the weapons that you own, but they can restrict when, where, and under what justification you can use them so that you were not endangering others in the process.
     

    diesel1959

    por vida
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    3,837
    96
    Houston & BFE
    I'm seriously disappointed in the Court for not taking up the Kolbe & Norman cases. By failing to grant cert., certain socialist states and circuits are thus further emboldened.
     

    NavyVet1959

    Curmudgeon Extraordinaire
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 14, 2014
    427
    26
    Texas, ya'll
    I wonder if they would take the case of a state declaring a certain religion illegal. If so, then they are a bunch of two-faced cowardly idiots for not seeing that the same applies to the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not provide for ANY exceptions. Maybe there are some people we might prefer did not have access to firearms, just like there are certain religions that we might prefer did not exist, but BOTH are Constitutionally Protected with NO EXCEPTIONS. If people can't understand that simple fact, then they need to go find themselves another planet to live on since we don't need people that stupid corrupting our gene pool.
     

    Lunyfringe

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 22, 2017
    1,402
    96
    Canton, TX
    I wonder if they would take the case of a state declaring a certain religion illegal. If so, then they are a bunch of two-faced cowardly idiots for not seeing that the same applies to the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not provide for ANY exceptions. Maybe there are some people we might prefer did not have access to firearms, just like there are certain religions that we might prefer did not exist, but BOTH are Constitutionally Protected with NO EXCEPTIONS. If people can't understand that simple fact, then they need to go find themselves another planet to live on since we don't need people that stupid corrupting our gene pool.
    If you're talking about Islam, that's not a religion... it's a political ideology. One could make a case that it has a religous component... but once it has rules governing how other religions are to be treated (with a tax levied on infidels), it crosses the line between a religion and a political system designed to rule people.
     
    Top Bottom