Washington Semiautomatic assault weapons represent a significant technological change - they allowa shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, ....

[CamoDeafie]

This is bullcrap on stilts, even in the Founders' day full-auto was a thing (Puckle Gun) just rare and expensive.

This hack judge should be impeached for at best functional illiterat and at worst out right dropping trou and Bowl Blastering right into SCOTUS's face.

The worst thing.. that Judge ain't alone with their opinions and activist backgrounds.

 

[RX-79G]

Just goes to show that they don't "get it" either. Not encouraging.

With all due respect, If Thomas or Alito doesn't know what the law is, why do you think you know better? I haven't met anyone with opinions like yours that is actually a legal scholar.

This is something I have been evangelizing for quite some time: We need to get real about what Constitutional scholars, judges and legislators believe is true about 2A, and act accordingly.

 

[Kruel J]

This is something I have been evangelizing for quite some time: We need to get real about what Constitutional scholars, judges and legislators believe is true about 2A, and act accordingly.

It shouldn't matter what they "believe". It's right there in black and white. The tech argument is BS with @Reno making one of the best analogies I've seen in a minute.

 

[Diamondback]

If 2A only covers muskets and muzzleloaders then 1A only covers quill pens with letters delivered by horse and carriage or riding courier.

 

[Kruel J]

If 2A only covers muskets and muzzleloaders then 1A only covers quill pens with letters delivered by horse and carriage or riding courier.

Exactly. Let's see them spin that one.

 

[RX-79G]

It shouldn't matter what they "believe". It's right there in black and white. The tech argument is BS with @Reno making one of the best analogies I've seen in a minute.

It certainly does matter if you want the government to protect your rights. As it stands right now, the very conservative super majority we have in SCOTUS absolutely does not read 2A like you do. No legislature reads it that way, no likely Presidential candidate reads it that way.

How do you get something that no one who is ever going to be in charge agrees is yours?

 

[RX-79G]

If 2A only covers muskets and muzzleloaders then 1A only covers quill pens with letters delivered by horse and carriage or riding courier.

Who says it only covers muskets? Making a strawman out of this doesn't help.

 

[Kruel J]

It certainly does matter if you want the government to protect your rights. As it stands right now, the very conservative super majority we have in SCOTUS absolutely does not read 2A like you do. No legislature reads it that way, no likely Presidential candidate reads it that way.

How do you get something that no one who is ever going to be in charge agrees is yours?

Wrong people in charge. And the government works for the people, not the other way around. In fact, a true DEMOCRACY doesn't have "leaders" it has representatives....of the people.

 

[The Heretic]

With all due respect, If Thomas or Alito doesn't know what the law is, why do you think you know better? I haven't met anyone with opinions like yours that is actually a legal scholar.

How about the founding fathers who wrote the law?

The problem with today's judicial system is 250 years of precedent/teachings that corrupt a "legal scholar's" understanding of the founding principles. It is mostly about protecting the power and stability of the government. That pretty much started right out the gate (lookup the Alien & Sedition acts of 1798).

If you go back and read the history books & the writings of the Founding Fathers on the Constitution, you will find the purpose of the Second Amendment was to enable a balance of power between citizens and the government, by arming the citizenry and NOT having a "standing army". As such, any armament that the government has, the citizenry should be able to have also.

There is nothing in their writings or the Second Amendment about restricting possession of "unusual" or "dangerous" arms by citizen - just the opposite. Just the opposite.

 

[Kruel J]

How about the founding fathers who wrote the law?

The problem with today's judicial system is 250 years of precedent/teachings that corrupt a "legal scholar's" understanding of the founding principles. It is mostly about protecting the power and stability of the government. That pretty much started right out the gate (lookup the Alien & Sedition acts of 1798).

If you go back and read the history books & the writings of the Founding Fathers on the Constitution, you will find the purpose of the Second Amendment was to enable a balance of power between citizens and the government, by arming the citizenry and NOT having a "standing army". As such, any armament that the government has, the citizenry should be able to have also.

There is nothing in their writings or the Second Amendment about restricting possession of "unusual" or "dangerous" arms by citizen - just the opposite. Just the opposite.

1000% this. Any argument against it is an argument for gun control.

 

[RX-79G]

Wrong people in charge. And the government works for the people, not the other way around. In fact, a true DEMOCRACY doesn't have "leaders" it has representatives....of the people.

The People are diverse, and the majority don't hold views of 2A that are more extreme than Alito's. In fact, the majority holds a less favorable view of guns than he does.

So you can either embrace the majority will of the people - which you don't. Or you can hope to get the most conservative justices possible in the court - and we are there. But they don't hold the view you want either.

Then there is overthrowing the majority of the country. Didn't work last time.

 

[RX-79G]

How about the founding fathers who wrote the law?

The problem with today's judicial system is 250 years of precedent/teachings that corrupt a "legal scholar's" understanding of the founding principles. It is mostly about protecting the power and stability of the government. That pretty much started right out the gate (lookup the Alien & Sedition acts of 1798).

If you go back and read the history books & the writings of the Founding Fathers on the Constitution, you will find the purpose of the Second Amendment was to enable a balance of power between citizens and the government, by arming the citizenry and NOT having a "standing army". As such, any armament that the government has, the citizenry should be able to have also.

There is nothing in their writings or the Second Amendment about restricting possession of "unusual" or "dangerous" arms by citizen - just the opposite. Just the opposite.

How about them? Are you going to call them back from the dead to tell everybody what's what?

That's the frustrating thing about talking about gun rights - it's like talking to people that believe the second coming is next Tuesday, so they refuse to go grocery shopping.

The extremes of your belief system aren't going to produce real world results.

 

[Kruel J]

The People are diverse, and the majority don't hold views of 2A that are more extreme than Alito's. In fact, the majority holds a less favorable view of guns than he does.

So you can either embrace the majority will of the people - which you don't. Or you can hope to get the most conservative justices possible in the court - and we are there. But they don't hold the view you want either.

Then there is overthrowing the majority of the country. Didn't work last time.

People are indeed diverse. And just because some want to manipulate the BOR so it fits their narrative doesn't mean the rest of us lay down and give up.

People are allowed differing opinions no matter what .gov says.

 

[Kruel J]

How about them? Are you going to call them back from the dead to tell everybody what's what?

That's the frustrating thing about talking about gun rights - it's like talking to people that believe the second coming is next Tuesday, so they refuse to go grocery shopping.

The extremes of your belief system aren't going to produce real world results.

No, the frustrating thing about talking about gun rights on a GUN FORUM is the bad actors that come on here and try to argue everyone else's opinions down.

 

[RX-79G]

People are indeed diverse. And just because some want to manipulate the BOR so it fits their narrative doesn't mean the rest of us lay down and give up.

People are allowed differing opinions no matter what .gov says.

But you are giving up. Saying that there is no acceptable solution from the government or the people or the courts is saying there is no solution.

 

[RX-79G]

No, the frustrating thing about talking about gun rights on a GUN FORUM is the bad actors that come on here and try to argue everyone else's opinions down.

If we were talking about ballistics, you wouldn't embrace someone insisting you can hit the moon with a .308. So why talk about gun advocacy like a religion?

 

[Kruel J]

But you are giving up. Saying that there is no acceptable solution from the government or the people or the courts is saying there is no solution.

You'll have to try harder, I'm not easily confused or manipulated by anti-2A speak.

 

[Kruel J]

If we were talking about ballistics, you wouldn't embrace someone insisting you can hit the moon with a .308. So why talk about gun advocacy like a religion?

It's a GUN FORUM!!! JHC how hard is that to understand.

 

[Knobgoblin]

 

[Kruel J]

View attachment 1434184

On any other day I might edit that one...................


NR, who am I fooling?