Shall not be infringed, what does that mean?

[easy rider]

true... but assault, murder (accidental or intentional), and destruction of property are already illegal so the harm you would do by being an idiot with a quad 50 is already covered by law.

Sure, take the fun out of everything.

 

[Vaquero]

Wow!

Run out of popcorn?

 

[easy rider]

I forgot to pop some more, I'm ready now.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

I did address the issue on varying levels, you remained obtuse, beat your own chest for your imagined cleverness, clapped your own back for your confused "insights", and now I'm just calling you names.

Kar, ????

Guess I will just hand your quote back to you:

"Your incoherent, pointless ramblings. I can't even figure out what you're arguing for or against. Maybe you WOULD be better off on a soap box in front of the town tavern."

 

[AustinN4]

This thread has been infringed.

 

[easy rider]

I'm kinda glad that some here don't have a quad 50.

 

[Kar98]

Kar, ????

Guess I will just hand your quote back to you:

"Your incoherent, pointless ramblings. I can't even figure out what you're arguing for or against. Maybe you WOULD be better off on a soap box in front of the town tavern."

Scroll back in this thread to see what I had to say on the subject. I ain't gonna repeat myself anymore.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

They exist. Wheels look way too small to me, but apparently they were that way so they could be knocked out and the trailer solidly rest on the ground.
View attachment 134769

It's bizarre to me that you would equate child porn to free speech or any part of this discussion. Child porn is wrong because it is the gains from directly harming someone. A person owning a quad 50 harms no one.

"We were the most highly decorated army artillery outfit in Vietnam. The only A.D.A. unit with a Congressional Medal of Honor, SGT Mitchell Stout, C-1/44thDusters and Distinguished Service Cross, Staff Sergeant Jeffery Jarman, Quad-50 Squad Leader, Delta 71st ADA,. We were awarded Presidential and Meritorious Unit citations, Silver Stars, Bronze stars, and over 1,000 Purple Hearts.
"We were in demand, 'Fire Power for Hire'. Over four million 40 MM rounds, ten million .50 cal. rounds, and a million miles of illumination from the D.M.Z. to the Delta."

http://www.ndqsa.com/vnphotosr.html

 

[pronstar]

Yea, they are available, run <$10,000 depending upon condition and how complete (does NOT count the cost of the 4 M2 50's).

Yes wheels are small to make this easy to remove and move around. Common employment was truck mounted (2 ½ Ton truck) or a fixed ground mount as you stated.

$10k doesn’t seem expensive at all for one of those...but I suppose the actual utility of the thing is extremely limited LOL

Edit:
NM
I didn’t see the “guns not included” part.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[vmax]

 

[easy rider]

View attachment 134788

There you go again, messing with my entertainment.

 

[vmax]

just making a prediction...that's all...

 

[diesel1959]

Valid, though arguable, retort.

1A applies to language based communication, methinks.

Most reasonable people agree there are limits.
I cannot drive around with pipe bombs on my front seat or convert my AR-15 to full auto or buy a hand grenade in a Walmart parking lot outside Fort Hood.
That is "2A infringement" that most accept and a few disagree on.

Showing my age, but I legally converted a rifle to full auto in 1984. Would love to see those rights returned. Some would say my 2A right was infringed because I had to pay $200 to convert that rifle, eh?

I don't agree with your comments in the third paragraph. I like to think of myself as reasonable; however, I believe the National Firearms Act of 1934 is wrong, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is wrong, and the Hughes Amendment is wrong--all wrong in that they are ALL unlawful restrictions of an unalienable right that pre-existed the 2A but also categorically contravene the 2A. Just saying.

 

[HKShooter65]

...I believe the National Firearms Act of 1934 is wrong, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is wrong, and the Hughes Amendment is wrong--all wrong in that they are ALL unlawful restrictions of an unalienable right....

I don't disagree.

I just made the observation that "arms" is utterly undefined in the context of the the 2A.

Is an AR15 rifle with a 10" barrel an arm?
Is carrying an AR15 into a bar drunk at midnight a 2A right?
Is a pipe bomb an arm?
Is a claymore mine pilfered from Fort Hood an arm?


The issue is not weather infringement occurs.
It does. Fact.
It's about where the lines are drawn.

Not trying to be contrary.
Er. Well.....maybe a little bit.

HKS

 

[vmax]

I don't disagree.

I just made the observation that "arms" is utterly undefined in the context of the the 2A.


HKS

You could benefit from some reading on this topic

The founders purposely kept the text simple

It was written in 2 parts for clarity.
The Prefatory Clause and the Operative Clause.
Originalist jurist will seek the intent of the text not just the words.
The word "arms" is well defined by Justice Scalia in Heller.

 

[HKShooter65]

You could benefit from some reading on this topic...
....The word "arms" is well defined by Justice Scalia in Heller.

You think so? Fair enough.
Scalia's opinions are complex and convoluted legalese.

here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Scalia's Heller opinion of almost a decade ago.
"Arms" appears 298 times in his Heller text.

Could be construed as black and white.
or
100 attorneys could interpret it 100 ways.
Future courts will tell.

Your assessment of "well defined" by Scalia is based on what is below.
BTW IMO "well defined" is not well defined.



Scalia's words are precisely here:

"Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). 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.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794)"

 

[AustinN4]

Moved to Vets on 2A where it really belongs

 

[tomballpa]

I assumed that by your comments on war...my mistake...

Bump stocks: Never owned, does not fit my gun profile, if you chose, that is your choice, there my concern is (new) Las Vegas and few folks outside of a minority in the gun community know what a bump stock is, so what they do know is just what the Fake media tells them. Am I willing to fall on my sword over a BS, not me personally, but we as a collective community are WE willing...my bet is prob not. Now we run into the "NOT an INCH" problem.

Are you getting what I am saying. There are minefields in not and inch thinking, but if we can all agree then we can take a stand and I will follow the crowd, but till we have a coherent message we are not unified.

I think we all have our biases, and that those biases shape our political leanings and tolerances. I have no need or desire for a bump stock, however I believe the 2nd Amendment allows for them. That said, the Constitution limits federal government and unfortunately not all forms of government. Clearly the Supreme Court has allowed municipalities and states to limit mag capacity, as well as sizes and shapes of firearms. So the fight is a local fight. I do not believe a Federal ban would stand. So we have to worry more about the Cities and States we live in. With Liberty comes great responsibility. Give me liberty, and I will be responsible for myself. In turn, I am willing to give every one else the liberty to buy what they want, including bump stocks.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

I think we all have our biases, and that those biases shape our political leanings and tolerances. I have no need or desire for a bump stock, however I believe the 2nd Amendment allows for them. That said, the Constitution limits federal government and unfortunately not all forms of government. Clearly the Supreme Court has allowed municipalities and states to limit mag capacity, as well as sizes and shapes of firearms. So the fight is a local fight. I do not believe a Federal ban would stand. So we have to worry more about the Cities and States we live in. With Liberty comes great responsibility. Give me liberty, and I will be responsible for myself. In turn, I am willing to give every one else the liberty to buy what they want, including bump stocks.

YOU CLEARLY GET IT!
I cannot argue that bumpstock are not allowed by the 2nd, but they have as we are seeing that the will most likely fall under the umbrella of the 1934 Full Auto.


And you bring up a point about local laws.

Here I really go a bit nutso. IF the BoR is based upon GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE Rights then IMO local [city, county, state) has no jurisdiction. I am a sovereign man and I have the GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE Right to defend myself by what ever means needed to successfully do so. Local cannot take that away from me. And defending myself does not mean running away, albeit that could be an option if I am just walking down a public street, but certainly on my own property I have no place to run to so avoidance is not an option. On a public street I would need to be able to get away to a safe place. Meaning if you have gun, I cannot outrun the bullet, if there is more than one then not likely I can defend myself unless I have a gun.

Not sure how many are keeping up with national news on local control over guns but its spreading like wildfire: Banning AR's, banning guns in total, ammo, you name it. IMO of SCOTUS says some 2 bit city Mayor can override my 2nd BoR we got a real problem on our hands. Ironic in that the ONLY way it can be solved [from MY view] is in order to take my gun, you have to use a gun to do it...something is wrong.

This also begs the question: IF a Mayor, local can negate my BoR then am I still a CITIZEN? The Constitution open with We the People, meaning ALL of us and it applies to us in its totality. States cannot overrule the Constitution and its BoR unless they can overrule GOD [and yes I know well that there are more than a few that think they can].

 

[tomballpa]

YOU CLEARLY GET IT!
I cannot argue that bumpstock are not allowed by the 2nd, but they have as we are seeing that the will most likely fall under the umbrella of the 1934 Full Auto.

This also begs the question: IF a Mayor, local can negate my BoR then am I still a CITIZEN? The Constitution open with We the People, meaning ALL of us and it applies to us in its totality. States cannot overrule the Constitution and its BoR unless they can overrule GOD [and yes I know well that there are more than a few that think they can].

In theory the BoR are inalienable by all forms of government. However, clearly the Supreme Court has allowed the erosion of those rights on multiple fronts. And clearly monopolistic business can grind those rights into the dust. i.e. Facebook, Google, banks, etc. Perhaps the court believes that the closer the voter is to the governing body imposing the rule, the more erosion is allowed give it becomes the will of a smaller & smaller body of voting people. At the end of the day we have to be involved in all levels of voting regardless of how hopeless and insignificant our votes appear.