Posted on 03/18/2008 9:25:56 AM PDT by NinoFan
http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
for the uninitiated.....What is 922????
Thanks.
The Venus de Milo???
Chapter 18, 922 of US code refering to firearms laws. Some are also located in 921 as well. It’s far to large to detail here, if you google it, you’ll find the morass of laws.
Mike
You want bombs? No problem...Get a Type 10 License to manufacture explosives. If you can get the DOE and IAEA to certify you, start making nukes!
LOL Maybe
An unconstitutional portion of the United States Code that infringes on the RKBA....it sets forth such inspid rules as the "sporting clause" which lets the unconstitutional and murderous federal LEO branch, BATF, make rules for importation, manufacture, and ownership of firearms to meet whatever "ruling" they say pertains to "sporting uses"....which is in direct contradiction to the 2nd Amendment.
Another unconstitutional violation is the McKlure (sp) Volkmer act which bans the manufacture of machineguns for civilian use after May 19, 1986, but your local 21 year old cop can be issued it to use against you and your family (again....ATF sets the standard in that arena).
Hope that helps.
Thanks
No, I'm not promoting a direct, extensive comparison. Just making a point: there is no absolute and ultimate right in the U.S. Constitution, no matter what the circumstances.
Thanks to you too.
Exactly what I'm speaking up for -- freedoms under our acknowledged social contract. Freedom with freedom's implicit responsibility.
I am going to bump this thread when the decision is finally released. When it does not incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the States and does not overturn the Federal Machine Gun Ban, I will give you a nice, "I told you so."
I am not purposely trying to be abrasive, but I believe that folks running around making bold and ignorant predictions of the ramifications of this case, are doing damage to the conservative cause.
I was discussing this with my brother a few moments ago, and cited the same things you did re: 18th century crew-served weapons. He's Navy, and mentioned Frigates, and I mentioned that as a good example. There were many in private hands in the US before our Navy got one.
On the other hand, I don't see any good reason to settle for less than is our due. Anything a military guy can have, I can have, as a direct descendent of the 18th century military guys. Today's F-22 Raptor is a direct descendent of the battlefield superiority weapon of the 18th Century, the Pennsylvania Rifle, the Ferguson Rifle, and all the other accurate and affordable arms of the day.
Personally, I want an F-111D. I figure to park it in my back yard, and go pee on it every day... Too bloody expensive to fix, and sucks JP-4 like there's no tomorrow. And those are it's good points.
I wonder how we could have our revolution to throw off said government as is stated in the Declaration, if we don’t have guns outside the military?
Valid point. ANY object can become a weapon in the hands of someone desperate enough to use it. Including, for example, a newspaper, pen, or rusty tin can lid.
A weapon is an object for applying force. That happens to also be a definition for many tools. For example, I conk you on the head with a 15” Crescent Wrench, you ARE going down. Unless I'm particularly gentle in doing it, you won't be getting back up, either.
Even the most conservative Justices (Thomas excepted, for obvious reasons) seem to have left a lot of cover for existing restrictions on military arms. Counter-intuitively, they seem to say it's important to protect the right of the individual to show up armed for militia muster as long as they don't do it with anything more powerful than what's commonly available to the average civilian. And, by the way, machine guns (or anything else we decide isn't OK) aren't commonly available since the law makers say they can't be.
No, but RP is an @ss.
“The loosest state laws for carry have those.”
Vermont has no license or permit for carry.
“The classic “fire in a crowded theater” example. “
You can yell fire in a crowded theater if the place is on fire. The full quote uses the word “falsely”.
“As for religion, would you say not allowing live goat sacrifice constitutes “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion?”
Yes. And if you will ban actual sacrifice why allow symbolic sacrifice, or sacrifice in which the participants believe they are consuming human flesh?
If the goat is eaten afterwards, is it sacrifice or slaughter for food? That would depend on the words spoken, and that leads you into the realm of halal meat preparation, is that really sacrifice, or slaughter?
************
....With Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia leaving little doubt that they favor an individual rights interpretation of the Amendment (and with Justice Clarence Thomas, though silent on Tuesday, having intimated earlier that he may well be sympathetic to that view), Kennedy’s inclinations might make him — once more — the holder of the decisive vote.”
************
On a previous Supreme Court decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion stating, “...the Second Amendment protects an individual right...”. So, I would consider Justice Thomas to be solidly on the side of individual rights.
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.