Weird How The NRA Knew What an AR-15 Was For in 1962, But Now They Claim It is For Personal Protection

Sep 2019
1,234
1,757
dfw, texas
The 2nd protects your right to keep and bear the same weapons carried by a soldier in the military as per SCOTUS, this is true so that if the government were to call up the militia, state of federal, you would already be proficient in the use of arms... (well regulated) ...


Not sure what your issue is here?
the fact that even most gun nuts agree all arms of war should not be legal. it is just an argument over where to draw the line. do you believe you have the right to own grenades and land mines and shoulder fired ground to air missile systems?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devil505

remington50

Moderator
Dec 2018
6,596
2,727
Florida
Had the NRA/GOP/gun industry not seen $$$ for these weapons of war, young guys like this wouldn't be fat or stupid, but would have joined the military in order to use these weapons.

View attachment 27645
Says the person making assumptions about people she doesn’t know. Go figure.

I’m curious. What is your personal experience with firearms?
 
Sep 2019
1,234
1,757
dfw, texas
This is where you usually disapear and run away.


"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. "


United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
hate to burst your snot bubble, but your post confirms that the Supreme Court clearly believes certain arms of war can be banned from private ownership. try to read it again.

The key to the government’s case—that the Second Amendment provided only a very narrow right to keep and bear arms — is found in the third quarter of the brief. 16 Jackson argued that the Second Amendment was rooted in English Common Law, which law:

♦ strictly limited the right to keep and to bear arms; 17
♦ allowed the people to take up arms in self-defense against "tyrannical and unprincipled rulers". 18
♦ "did not permit the keeping of arms for purposes of private defense." 19
♦ "only allowed persons of a certain rank to have arms, and consequently this declaration of right had reference to such [persons – auths.] only." 20
♦ along with the Federal and State Constitutions recognized the right to keep and bear arms in connection with the maintenance of an effective militia, "as contrasted with a standing army which might possibly be used to oppress..." 21

As a result, Jackson concluded that the right to keep and bear arms, "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only ... for the protection of the state." 22
In the last quarter of his brief, Jackson explained that even when Courts had held that individuals could bear arms for personal protection, "the term ’arms’ as used in constitutional provisions refers only to those weapons which are ordinarilyused for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals. 23 Thus, "Sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifles and machine guns are clearly weapons which can have no legitimateuse in the hands of private individuals. On the contrary they ... are not weapons of the character which are recognized by the common opinion of good citizens as proper for defence. 24
In support of this conclusion, Jackson quoted from a Report of the House Ways and Means Committee

"The growing frequency of crimes of violence in which people are killed or injured by the use of dangerous weapons needs no comment. The gangster as a law violator must be deprived of his most dangerous weapon, the machine gun. Your committee is of the opinion that limiting the bill to the taxing of sawed-off guns and machine guns is sufficient at this time. It is not thought necessary to go so far as to include pistols and revolvers and sporting.arms. But while there is justification for permitting the citizen to keep a pistol or revolver for his own protection without any restriction, there is no reason why anyone except a law officer should have a machine gun or sawed-off shotgun. 25

The U.S. v Miller, revisited
 
Sep 2019
1,234
1,757
dfw, texas
Says the person making assumptions about people she doesn’t know. Go figure.

I’m curious. What is your personal experience with firearms?
are you against people dying of cancer? what is your experience in being a doctor or having cancer?
 
Sep 2019
1,234
1,757
dfw, texas
So ANY weapon that is for “military purpose” shouldn’t be allowed to be purchased by a civilian? Can you clarify that position?
I wouldn't say any weapon, there are no black and white answers for almost any topic. it is called using "judgment." do you believe every weapon that can be used by the military should also be legal for private citizens? if not, you agree with me. you might disagree with me on where to draw the line- I would draw the line to include assault weapons and high capacity magazines with grenades and fully auto machine guns and shoulder fired ground to air missiles. even ronald reagan agreed with me-

assault weapon ban reagan letter.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devil505

remington50

Moderator
Dec 2018
6,596
2,727
Florida
are you against people dying of cancer? what is your experience in being a doctor or having cancer?
This is a valid question to the poster. At least YOU are making rational arguments. Don’t try to defend someone whose defense against “assault weapons” is to call people “fat and stupid.” Reminds me of “Throw mama from the train.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: llovejim

remington50

Moderator
Dec 2018
6,596
2,727
Florida
I wouldn't say any weapon, there are no black and white answers for almost any topic. it is called using "judgment." do you believe every weapon that can be used by the military should also be legal for private citizens? if not, you agree with me. you might disagree with me on where to draw the line- I would draw the line to include assault weapons and high capacity magazines with grenades and fully auto machine guns and shoulder fired ground to air missiles. even ronald reagan agreed with me-

View attachment 27649
Ok. So you say there is no black and white. Well then. What military weapons ARE acceptable to be owned by civilians?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rev. Hellh0und
May 2019
2,674
6,756
Backatown, USA
The NRA was a whole different animal in 1962.
They were a gun education and safety organization who promoted responsible gun ownership and lobbied for gun control laws. There was a time when NRA president Karl Frederick praised the national gun control acts passed by Congress and said that he didn't believe in carrying guns without a reason.
Then the hardliners came along - a bunch of political operatives led by Harlon Carter who executed a hostile takeover of the organization and started turning it into a lobbying arm of the gun industry and a political machine that punished anyone who tried to impose any sensible gun laws.
Their answer to everything became "More Guns".

We're the only industrialized country in the world that has allowed an organization like the NRA to amass such power, and we have the world's highest rates of gun deaths and mass shootngs to show for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devil505