Shall not be infringed, what does that mean?

[Ole Cowboy]

PLEASE this is not a discussion on the pro's and con's of Quad 50's, if you are interested, ask me, I know a lot about them.

I will pose the question: Did passing the FA law back in '34 IIRC, did that STOP the gangland killings?

We all know the answer, NO! In fact still going on today. But the anti's well say, not true, look at how few FA are being used to kill people? Ok will grant that point BUT its NOT due to the law that was passed. We have nearly 100 years of FA experience from the streets of Chicago to wars. History tells the 'tale of the tape'. Fact is FA is and was only a killer of men when the tactics were based upon "waves" of men often marching on line attacking trench lines and hilltops. FA body count is rather low because we no longer use those tactics and FA is a great way to make you want to get down and find cover and concealment, which means you stop shooting. But it is effective if you are sitting in a barber's chair.

Then where do we draw the line or is there NO line to be drawn?

I think I know the answer, do you?

 

[majormadmax]

Do you honestly expect anyone to select the second option?

 

[avvidclif]

I won't dignify that poll with a response

 

[Ole Cowboy]

I would think so because the other option means you can own a nuke.

Many think its cut and dry: Shall not be infringed gives me a license to do as I please with anything anytime anywhere...

What was the intent of our founding fathers?

I will make this simple: Defense or OFFENSE?

 

[Kar98]

 

[Ole Cowboy]

I won't dignify that poll with a response

IF that is you attitude it tells me all I need to know where you REALLY stand!

 

[vmax]

Do you want to know what the landmark decision in our life times says about limits on 2A?
PLEASE read the ENTIRE Majority Opinion on Heller by Scalia
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

for a very, very short answer, fast forward to the 4:00 mark here.

 

[avvidclif]

IF that is you attitude it tells me all I need to know where you REALLY stand!

Yep, I fully understand "Shall not be infringed"

 

[TheMailMan]

I would think so because the other option means you can own a nuke.

Many think its cut and dry: Shall not be infringed gives me a license to do as I please with anything anytime anywhere...

What was the intent of our founding fathers?

I will make this simple: Defense or OFFENSE?

If one can afford a nuke....then they should be allowed to purchase it.

 

[MTA]

I just want an MG42 and a few AT4s

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Do you want to know what the landmark decision in our life times says about limits on 2A?
PLEASE read the ENTIRE Majority Opinion on Heller by Scalia
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

for a very, very short answer, fast forward to the 4:00 mark here.

GREAT post, doubt if any will bother, it's an answer they don't want to hear...

So there we have one of the most conservative judges, especially towards gun that has sat on SCOTUS. After him it all gets a lot more far left.

So if Nukes and Quads are your opinion the you have become the far left dream, you played all your cards right into their hands, they LOVE you. You are gonna lose the war and I point directly at you for our loss.

The intent of the founders was defense against a tyrannical govt, not for you to overthrow the govt. They were smart, very smart. They gave us the ability to resist and win, but not the ability to go to war. Which is WHY SCOTUS calls it and individual right and not a collective righy.

Some of you folks are saying its everything or nothing at all in order to have something you cannot have.

 

[diesel1959]

yawn

Does the OP not realize that there ARE legally-owned quad-fifties in the hands of regular folks who are not FFL/SOTs?

 

[avvidclif]

I sure would hate to pay the feed bill on one of those. Cheapo 50 cal @ $2 ea x 600 rpm x 4 gets expensive.

 

[satx78247]

diesel1959,

Fwiw, I've been a guest on the farm of a gentleman (YEP a MULTI-millionaire) who has fully functional tanks, APC, artillery pieces, numerous FA weapons of many sorts & a MIG25.

I see NO problem with him having anything that he can afford, as obviously BATFE does NOT as they approved his collection.

Inasmuch as I'm a "person of ordinary means" & on a small pension. I'll never have to worry about buying an Abrams tank or a MIG.

MILLER indicates that MILITIA WEAPONS are the sort of weapons that a "citizen might be expected to reasonably own" (MILLER states firearms that are of the sort that the US Armed Forces issues presently or in the past) BUT in the event that a civilian militia member DOES own heavy equipment, heavy machine guns, armed aircraft and/or watercraft, artillery pieces or other EXPENSIVE items, that the militia member MAY be ordered to militia service WITH those items.
(The decision also says what weapons are NOT militia weapons, as those "criminal instrumentalities" are "suitable only to rob a liquor store" but are NOT suitable to "defend home, State & nation".)

MILLER also states that IF the militia members NEED items like bombs, armed aircraft, rockets, mines & other VERY EXPENSIVE items, that "the central government will provide those items to the militia", as it is "unreasonable to believe that an ordinary citizen" would possess such items.

NOTE: The Moron Left HATES the MILLER decision (and tries hard to ignore or dismiss the decision of the SCOTUS and/or explain its words away) as it makes all their nutty ideas MOOT & LOOK FOOLISH.

yours, satx

 

[TexasBrandon]

If I need a fucken Schwerer Gustav (Dora) railway gun then I should be able to have one to defend against a threat. Ill leave that at that.

 

[satx78247]

To ALL,

Incidentally, for those of our members who have NOT bothered to read MILLER: The MILITIA is EVERYONE who is CAPABLE OF BEARING ARMS in defense of home, city & State.
(YES, that means that women, the elderly, the disabled & even children MAY be called to militia service IF the emergency is severe enough to require their service.)

Imo, a very small percentage of "ordinary persons" are actually INCAPABLE of doing some valuable service to their local community in a severe natural or manmade emergency.
(For example, I have a close friend who is now in a wheelchair most of the time but who said one evening, when a group of us were talking about "storm recovery", that "I may be disabled but I'm a ham operator & with little training, I can dispatch ambulances, firetrucks & police cars, without any difficulty. That would free an able-bodied officer to do other things.")

Note: The HORRID MESS in the wake of HARVEY, the BASTROP FIRES & other similar events gave lots of us, who are interested in Storm & Emergency Recovery, any number of ideas on what MIGHT be necessary to help our own communities recover from a disaster.

yours, satx

 

[Hoji]

Not. One. More. Inch.


Fûck anyone who wants to give it to them.

 

[satx78247]

Hoji,

AGREED 1,000%.

Missed you at lunch at Freda's last Friday. = I was in Austin for the week & will likely will be next Friday, too.

yours, satx

 

[vmax]

Not. One. More. Inch.


Fûck anyone who wants to give it to them.

Not just one more inch..
I actually want some back
Silencers should be as easy to buy as a shotgun like they are in the UK
Also what does it matter if someone wants a rifle or shotgun at whatever barrel length they want it to be?

 

[satx78247]

vmax,

Had it not been for a cheap crook, who sawed off a 16 gauge single-barrel shotgun into "a pistol-like device" to rob a liquor store (He got less than 10 bucks, btw.), SBR & SBS would likely still be lawful.
It's about 80 years past the proper time to repeal the entire NFA, imo.

yours, satx