I haven’t been up very long this morning, but now I’m going to pretend my toilet is her mouth and feed her some shit to keep her brain strong.Biden wakes up in the morning saying cock-a doodle do.
Harris wakes up saying any cock will do.
United States v Miller, 1939. The Supreme Court upheld the NFA in the case of a sawed-off shotgun because
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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Wait...you mean the Supreme Court set precedent that we're supposed to have weapons of military use? Yes, yes they did. While they were upholding a law that in itself is an egregious violation of the Second Amendment, they still verified that we're supposed to have weapons that would be useful on the battlefield. Because the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or shooting ranges.
I came here to post this.
I'm amazed by the number of gun owners who haven't read the Miller decision.
I have read that decision some years ago, I'm kind of perplexed as to why no one has used it to challenge some of the existing restrictive gun laws that have been passed.The decision itself is...well...legally questionable. The justices were bending over backward to rule in the government's favor because Miller himself was a known bank robber who was apparently on his way to rob a bank when he crossed state lines with his sawed-off shotgun and got nabbed. But bringing in the actual meaning of the opening clause about the militia should have set precedent in how the Second Amendment is read and obeyed where gun control laws are concerned.
I suspect so many people are ignorant of the Miller decision because so many don't want knowledge of it to influence resistance to gun control laws. Out of sight, out of mind.
Be careful spreading this knowledge. They might build a time machine to go back and picket the justices in their homes.The decision itself is...well...legally questionable. The justices were bending over backward to rule in the government's favor because Miller himself was a known bank robber who was apparently on his way to rob a bank when he crossed state lines with his sawed-off shotgun and got nabbed. But bringing in the actual meaning of the opening clause about the militia should have set precedent in how the Second Amendment is read and obeyed where gun control laws are concerned.
I suspect so many people are ignorant of the Miller decision because so many don't want knowledge of it to influence resistance to gun control laws. Out of sight, out of mind.
Possibly. But in my view, if the courts had paid proper attention to Miller, Dred Scott, and Cruikshank (and Presser, too? IDK; I haven't read it in a while.), we wouldn't have needed Heller.Out of sight, out of mind.
Sorry, but you are helping to perpetrate their lies and misinformation. Guns are not designed to kill, anymore than vehicles, knives or baseball bats. Guns are designed to fire a bullet from a cartridge, nothing else and nothing more.She states that "certain semi-automatic firearms are "intentionally designed" to kill people and only belong on the battlefield." I would argue that most Democrat run cities are a battlefield. I would also argue that she is an idiot, all self defense weapons are designed to kill people, bad people. Otherwise they would be useless.
Sorry but nothing could be further from the truth. Vehicles are designed to get you from place to place, knives are designed to cut, baseball bats are designed to play the game of baseball. All of which however, could be used as a weapon. Guns are a weapon. Weapons are defined as: An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword. I am not perpetuating their lies. I am stating that the libtards have no idea what they are talking about.Sorry, but you are helping to perpetrate their lies and misinformation. Guns are not designed to kill, anymore than vehicles, knives or baseball bats. Guns are designed to fire a bullet from a cartridge, nothing else and nothing more.
And spoons and forks are to blame for people getting fat, and pencils are to blame for misspelled words.Sorry but nothing could be further from the truth. Vehicles are designed to get you from place to place, knives are designed to cut, baseball bats are designed to play the game of baseball. All of which however, could be used as a weapon. Guns are a weapon. Weapons are defined as: An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword. I am not perpetuating their lies. I am stating that the libtards have no idea what they are talking about.
Your first statement is on point. We are just going to have to disagree on your second statement. Liberal's interpretation of guns is just wrong period. Lets say that they are designed to stop a perp from causing harm and if he is killed in the process, so be it.And spoons and forks are to blame for people getting fat, and pencils are to blame for misspelled words.
Saying guns are designed to kill is perpetrating the liberal's interpretation of what they think about guns.
How a gun is used can lead to death, just as how a vehicle, a knife or a baseball bat is used can lead to death.Your first statement is on point. We are just going to have to disagree on your second statement. Liberal's interpretation of guns is just wrong period. Lets say that they are designed to stop a perp from causing harm and if he is killed in the process, so be it.
Swimming Pools, trains, bridges, electric devices/lines....weather....pillows, Dr's Office....How a gun is used can lead to death, just as how a vehicle, a knife or a baseball bat is used can lead to death.
Our job is not to help liberals in their interpretaton of what guns are designed for. in doing so, we are helping to villify the inanimate object, rather than the person that uses the object for evil deeds.
If guns are designed to kill, then all of mine have failed at what they were designed to do.
Show me anywhere in the 2nd Amendment that "need" was mentioned or implied?Again, I disagree. It is the same as the augment that you do not need an AR15 to hunt deer. The second amendment or the right to self defense or owning an AR15 or a weapon has nothing to do with hunting and I will never concede that point. I will also never concede the point that I don't need an AR15 or any weapon. Guns are weapons. The fact that liberals are delusional will never be solved by denying the purpose of your weapon and your right to use or own it. So you define weapon.
Exactly. Guns are an inanimate object, that has no thoughts, or feelings, or emotions. Guns can be neither good or bad, only the actions of the person using the gun can be defined as good or bad. Guns also will never do anything without human interaction.Firearms are designed to put a projectile in the spot they are aimed at when the trigger is pulled, consistently and reliably. They have no conscience or motivation, and they are not designed with any moral decision pre-made.
This is becoming ridiculous and I don't see where these statements are coming from. "Need" was never implied in what I said. Need is the statement used by liberals, not me. The right to keep and bear "Arms" shall not be infringed. Weapons = Arms. Feel free to use them interchangeably.Show me anywhere in the 2nd Amendment that "need" was mentioned or implied?
I'll also ask you to show where "weapons" was mentioned in the 2nd Amendment?
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 2nd Amendment was never about "need" but affirming the right that everyone had the right to self defense.This is becoming ridiculous and I don't see where these statements are coming from. "Need" was never implied in what I said. Need is the statement used by liberals, not me. The right to keep and bear "Arms" shall not be infringed. Weapons = Arms. Feel free to use them interchangeably.