Posted on 12/05/2008 7:43:58 AM PST by Bill Dupray
How can they ban any particular weapon, esp. in light of the Supreme Court decision this year, which said that individuals have the right to possess firearms? That decision confirmed what most of us thought the 2nd amendment means.
Do liberals just ignore court decisions that they don’t like, and pretend that it never happened?
Why weren’t all gun control laws null and void after this Supreme Court decision; does anybody know? All abortion regulations were thrown out on Jan 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is a civil right. So if we have a similar civil right to gun ownership, how can these gun laws still be enforced?
It would help if this guy knew what he was talking about.
The "evil" ones, you see, have a habit of sprouting little gun legs and getting up in the middle of the night to create mayhem. They mess up the house, leave the refrigerator door open and unlock the doors. They're evil.
If I could have one of the 3 rifles homer is showing off, I would that the AK based Valmet hunting rifle
The democrats will implement a series of communist style laws that will restrict the sale of ammunition. They will also ramp up their efforts to restrict/ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons. While I am uncertain of how they will do it, they are evil and they are lawyers so I am confident they will find a way.
Because Obama is a proven pathological liar, I am expecting the absolute worst case scenario for America.
Scalia did not say all gun regulations were unconstitutional, and that is the loophole through which the libs will try to ban semi-automatic weapons - if Obama keeps his promises that is. He seems to be getting more “pragmatic” about things now that he has won.
Try buying a machinegun made after April 19th 1986.
“Keep and bear arms.”
Not pistols, not muskets, but arms, because I assume they knew firearm technology would grow.
Scalia did not say that all bans were unconstitutional, but from his decision (and I haven’t read it for awhile) it would seem that the ban would have to at least pass the rational basis test (which an assault weapon ban can not pass) - or possibly would have to pass the test of there being no rational reason for ownership of the weapon -(this is based on Scalia’s justification for why US v. Miller still stands).
edit:
I would take that the AK based Valmet hunting rifle
This is BS, HO, only wants to ban automatic weapons for use by law abiding little people. Rest assured that HO will have guards fully armed with semi- and full-automatic weapons. The king has spoken and the serfs will submit. Please HO, take more of the fruits of our labor too.
That is the original spirit of the law
Term Limits by Vince Flynn is a good book and aprophos for this subject.
“It would help if this guy knew what he was talking about.”
The only thing I caught where he said something that was wrong was his comment that fully-automatic firearms are illegal for civilians. That is not really true. Fully-auto weapons are heavily restricted, and to possess one, one would have to jump through all sorts of legal hoops; but, if one took the time and money and effort to do that, absent some other disqualifiers, one could own such a weapon. The law just makes it extremely difficult to “pass muster” for possessing a fully-auto; so, for all practical purposes, it can be argued that it is illegal, though in the hard light of reality it isn’t.
There ya go!
He starts off with a lie and then lectures us on detail
I really have a tough time giving credit to media and politicians for having so much stupidity that they don’t know the difference between semi- and full-auto. I think they do know the difference and their objective is to eliminate private ownership—then the HO’s of the world will have all the firepower and their serfs will do their bidding with little resistance available.
The major factor prohibiting Class 3 (auto) weapons is money.
If you are a law abiding citizen with bucks you may own a full auto. You may own truckload of them if you wish.
The original intent of the 2nd amendment was that citizens should be able to meet the same force that the Gov held.
Does this mean that joe six pack should be able to own a bazooka?
According to the founders, the answer is yes.
The modern media and PC bedwetters would have us restricted to slings and arrows. And this guy, for all his good intentions propagates that notion.
I wonder if the government’s agents will have to abide by the ban.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.