Re: Democrat's proposed gun ban list

Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:wOednaQ3XeQvfvXUnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:49:19 -0600, The Lone Weasel wrote:

grey_ghost471-newsgroups@xxxxxxxxx (Gray Ghost) wrote in
news:Xns9B8EE7241CDC6Wereofftoseethewizrd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
"Weasel Thumper" <WeaselThumper@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:gk952r$tsl$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
"The Lone Weasel" <theloneweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9B8E92EEE7C1Etheloneweaselyahooco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


So tell us which of those weapons would have protection
under
the Second Amendment for individual gun owners.

All of them.

But first read DC v. Heller:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

I did. Which ones wouldn't and why?

You haven't read anything except NRA handouts, ShillBill.

[begin excerpt]

We also recognize another important limitation on the right
to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained,
that the sorts of weapons protected were those â?oin common
use at the time.â?� 307 U. S., at 179. We think that
limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of â?odangerous and unusual
weapons.â?�

...

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in
military serviceâ?"M-16 rifles and the likeâ?"may be banned,
then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from
the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of
the militia at the time of the Second Amendmentâ?Ts
ratification was the body of all citizens capable of
military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons
that they possessed at home to militia duty.

DC v Heller, p 55

[end excerpt]

That's exactly why Scalia recognizes the people's internal
police power to ban military and military-styled weapons, eg
virtually all the "assault weapons" listed by Sandshitter's
list.

But if you'd bothered to read DC v. Heller for yourself
instead of letting NRA lawloons do your thinking, you would
have known that, eh Shillbot?

POINT PROVEN!

Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.

As you well know "assault weapons" are not military weapons at
all (by definition, they are all semi-auto), but only look
like them.

So you're saying military assault rifles are not better
designed for combat and killing more humans than deer rifles
are?

That's a dumb thing to believe, Shillbill.

No, I'm not, but the proposed legislation doesn't have anything
to do with military assault rifles, now does it.

Please
point out where Scalia says that such rifles may be banned
because of their resemblance to actual military rifles.

They can be banned for no other reason than they're used to
effectively slaughter lots of innocent people - people you
don't give two shits about.

So you believe the Court will uphold a ban because gun owners
are just a bunch of old meanies and that guns can be used to
kill? I sincerely do hope that's the argument they use.

Weasel neglects the militia purposes of military style weapons.
Thus they should be the MOST protected under the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Am. protection of the people's RKBA is NOT about hunting
or sporting. It's actually about people having weapons of war!
(to keep control of their government)

Militiamen were expected to appear with weaponry suitable for
COMBAT. ...certainly not for hunting....

Actually, they were expected to appear bearing arms provided by
the themselves and of a type in common use at the time. That
would include weapons used for hunting.

If you say so, Sandsitter. That means real military weapons are
not protected for individual possession or use:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm
for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the
home. Pp. 2â?"53." - DC v Heller, Syllabus

As I noted earlier. You don't understand things you read and you
deny things people try to explain to you. That states that the
*right* is unconnected to militia service. It says nothing about the
arms.

So gun rights do not necessarily entail having any and all guns, eh
Sandwiper? Miller clearly says that contemporaneous military arms
are protected for use by the well-regulated miltia, aka the National
Guard

Can you give me a historical reference to there being a "National
Guard" in 1776 Jabba?

Can you understand that Congress's power to organize the well-regulated
militia entails the power to name the well-regulated militia whatever
the *** it wants?

Check your United States Constitution for further details, punkass troll.

The militia and the National Guard are legally two completely different
entities with different missions.

[begin excerpt]

The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art.
I, section 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution. It has only been in
recent years that the National Guard has been an organized force,
capable of being assimilated with ease into the regular military
establishment of the United States. From the days of the Minutemen of
Lexington and Concord until just before World War I, the various
militias embodied the concept-of a citizen army, but lacked the
equipment and training necessary for their use as an integral part of
the reserve force of the United States Armed Forces.

Maryland v United States (1965)

[end excerpt]

That's a US Supreme Court decision, Frank, so if you wanta keep your
lil' individual gun right under the Second Amendment you better start
respectin' the Court's other decisions like Maryland v. US...

Or else we're gonna overturn the parts'a Heller you like and keep the
parts ya don't like, eh Great Goosey?

Point proofen.

You really don't read what you cite, do you, Jabba old slimething?

From Maryland v. US, (1965)

"It is not argued here that military members of the Guard are federal
employees, even though they are paid with federal funds and must conform
to strict federal requirements in order to satisfy training and promotion
standards. Their appointment by state authorities and the immediate
control exercised over them by the States make it apparent that military
members of the Guard are employees of the States, and so the courts of
appeals have uniformly held."


"The 1933 National Guard Act clarified it by amending the National Defense
Act to set up a reserve organization of the Army of the United States
comprising the men and officers of the (then) National Guard of the States. A
War Department report of the time summarized the National Guard Act: "The
primary purpose of this bill is to create the National Guard of the UNITED
States as a component of the Army of the United States, both in time of peace
and war, ..." It does allow the states to utilize the Guard in times of
peace. However: "Every National Guard man who takes the oath takes it with
the understanding that he is part of the regular army and subject to the same
obligations that may be imposed on the regular army." 86 Congressional Record
9985 (August 7, 1940)

It seems to me the writer of the quoted opinion did not understand the law at
all.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!
.