Shall not be infringed, what does that mean?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ole Cowboy, Apr 2, 2018.

"shall not be infringed" means exactly that, I can own anything that can be classified as "arms"

  1. YES the Arms room is my oyster and I am Jonesing for a Quad 50

    93.5%
  2. Not so much, should be some limits, no one needs a Quad 50

    6.5%
  1. MTA89

    MTA89 Lives in a van down by the river TGT Supporter

    1,117
    636
    113
    Mar 10, 2017
    Almost Oklahoma
    I wont be happy until I can have this
     


    Davetex likes this.
  2. Kar98

    Kar98 Well-Known

    1,530
    534
    113
    Aug 8, 2016
    DFW
    Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit...



    Although here we could argue that it being towed and mounted on a trailer, it just might fall outside the definition of arms one could "bear".

    But seriously, on the subject of "military arms protected by the 2nd Amendment for ownership by civilians", lets not forget that in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), counsel for the U.S. argued the NFA did not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment because the short-barreled shotgun was, in their opinion, NOT a weapon of a kind used by military or militia.
     
    MTA89 likes this.
  3. avvidclif

    avvidclif Active Member

    640
    234
    43
    Aug 30, 2017
    Van Zandt County
    Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.

    I guess I'm being simplistic but that seems clear to me. Covers everything from slingshots to M16's, SAW's, and M60's. Try taking quad 50's into your hands.
     
    vmax likes this.
  4. easy rider

    easy rider Allotropic Transformer TGT Supporter

    9,163
    2,023
    113
    Jun 10, 2015
    Odessa, Tx
    And you guys complain about the cost of .338.
     
    vmax likes this.
  5. Chirpy

    Chirpy Well-Known TGT Supporter

    1,029
    22
    38
    Feb 2, 2013
    Hutto, TX (kinda)
    Always gonna look better in a Ford.
     
  6. easy rider

    easy rider Allotropic Transformer TGT Supporter

    9,163
    2,023
    113
    Jun 10, 2015
    Odessa, Tx
    I think if you plan on mounting a quad 50 in the bed of any pick-up, you had better modify that bed quite extensively.
     
  7. TheDan

    TheDan DEPLORABLE TGT Supporter

    15,351
    740
    113
    Nov 11, 2008
    Austin - Rockdale
    "or useth in wrath" is going to encompass pretty much anything.

    When the BoR was written, the majority of cannons were privately owned. Cannons are expensive so it wasn't common for an individual to own one, but it wasn't abnormal.
     
    vmax likes this.
  8. MTA89

    MTA89 Lives in a van down by the river TGT Supporter

    1,117
    636
    113
    Mar 10, 2017
    Almost Oklahoma
    I think we can agree on owning a pair of Flak88s
     
    TheMailMan likes this.
  9. benenglish

    benenglish Lifetime Supporter Staff Member Moderator Lifetime Member

    9,288
    988
    113
    Nov 22, 2011
    Spring
    Everyone who values the 2A should read (and memorize much of) U.S. v Miller. That case was so incredibly weird in so many ways yet it set the huge precedent that federal gun control could be done without a scrap of logic and still be constitutional.

    Here are the basics but everybody should read the entire text.
     
    Kar98 likes this.
  10. Ole Cowboy

    Ole Cowboy Well-Known

    2,485
    138
    63
    May 23, 2013
    17 Oaks Ranch
    US District Judge William Young says that the average US citizen doesn’t “need” an AR-15 and has upheld the Assault Weapons ban passed in Massachusetts on Friday.


    “In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large capacity magazines,” Young wrote. “The AR-15’s present-day popularity is not constitutionally material. This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable.They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.”




    Da Judge said this: "the words of our Constitution are not mutable”. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted." Well Judge, I agree with you, in fact I agree 100% on that sentence. Based upon YOUR judgement, the 2nd Amendment applied to what, a 1776 Brown Bess Musket ONLY or did it apply to all the Muskets that the PEOPLE had in their possession at that time? Well, according to you it applied to WE the People collectively what we owned at the time. That said, in FACT these were the ASSAULT WEAPONS of the day, according to you and since our Constitution is in effect today as it was then, then it applies to the ASSAULT weapons of TODAY. YES, Judge the words of the 2nd Amendment are NOT "MUTABLE" then or NOW!


    Federal Judge Stands Firm on Massachusetts “Assault Weapons Ban”

    Says "Right to Bear Arms" Doesn't Include AR-15s or High Capacity Magazines


    http://www.alloutdoor.com/2018/04/1...ent=2018-04-17&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter
     


    Loading...

Share This Page