Yeah, actually, civilians sometimes DO need 'assault weapons.'
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), meanwhile, subordinated his past honorable service as a Marine officer to party politics with the following statement. "I carried guns every day in Iraq, guns very similar to the ones used to perpetrate the Orlando murders and many other mass shootings in America." As shown above, it is absolutely illegal for a private citizen to acquire fully automatic firearms like the ones Moulton carried in Iraq without a background check and a federal permit.
Reid's and Moulton's deliberate obfuscation of semiautomatic rifles and assault rifles is entirely consistent with the Violence Policy Center's openly stated agenda to deceive the American public, and with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt money in the bargain.
In 1939, the Supreme Court of the United States in _Miller_ denied the claim of a defendant that certain provisions of Federal law regulating the possession of certain firearms was Unconstitutional. The reason the Court denied the claim is crucial to the current debate over Federal and State regulation of firearms, and the meaning of the Second Amendment according to the Supreme Court. [By the way, the _Heller_ decision did not overturn or modify the decision in _Miller,_ which therefore remains binding precedent. The two decisions are completely compatible.]
To understand the Court’s decision in _Miller,_ one must first comprehend how the _Miller_ Court interpreted the Second Amendment:
SCOTUS: “The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power —
_To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress._
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out “that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom,” and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.” ~ United States v. Miller (No. 696) 26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed. [Decided: May 15, 1939]
If that’s how the Court interpreted the Second Amendment, then why did it deny the defendant’s claim that the Federal laws regulating firearms at the time were Unconstitutional?
The reason was clearly *not,* as has often been falsely claimed, that the _Miller_ Court concluded that the Second Amendment did not grant an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Instead, the Court explained its reason this way:
“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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.”
In other words, no evidence had been entered into the official record of the case proving that the weapon possessed by the defendant (a shotgun with a a barrel length of less than 18”) was “any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
The Court interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to keep and bear _military grade_ firearms, and as far as it knew based on the evidence presented, a short-barreled shotgun was not “ordinary military equipment,” nor was it useful for the common defense of the nation.
So the defendant lost the case solely because his firearm wasn’t—in the opinion of the Court in the absence of any evidence on the subject in the official record of the case—a military grade weapon useful for “the common defense.”
Therefore, per current binding Supreme Court precedent, any outright prohibitions of firearms that qualify as “ordinary military equipment” or that would be useful “for the common defense” are Unconstitutional.
Yeah, actually, civilians sometimes DO need 'assault weapons.'
Seth’s a knob-polishing cock-knocker.
I wondered why in searching bios there’s no mention of a wife and children, and the guy’s almost 40.
Loves abortion, Obama, gun control, everything comes into focus.
Dingy Harry looked for someone normal to push their agenda and Seth was the best they could do.
The rifle used in Orlando was NOT an assault weapon
You’d think a soldier would know the difference between a gun and a rifle and fully auto vs semi auto
At least 300 million documented deaths have resulted from governments, 100 million of those within the last 100 years. All rifles, including the black scary ones, according to FBI statistics, kill less than 300 people a year. It would take a million years for ALL rifle murders to equal the number of people murdered by governments.
Given how our own government talks about Christians, a blind man can see what's coming if they get our guns. F%ck Seth Moulton in the @$$. Just because he served in the military doesn't mean he understand history, sociology or world politics, at least not at more than a third grade level.
Molon Labe Aholes
Yesterday patriotic, honest, responsible American citizens armed with an estimated
270 million guns, rifles and pistols and 250 billion rounds of ammunition harmed no one.
You don't get to tell me how to exercise my fundamental and Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Civilians have more and more reasons all the time beginning with our feral government.
Back in the day, the muzzle loader was considered an assault weapon. It was considered a God-given right to own one.
Seth Moulton: “On more than one occasion, guns saved my life.”
This man acknowledges that guns saved HIS life, yet wants to prevent the rest of us from having guns to save OUR lives.
Is this bastard loathsome or what?
Happyland fire killed 87 in a nightclub in 1990. The Cuban that murdered all those people used gasoline. That’s why they don’t say Orlando was the nation’s biggest mass murder. More people were murdered by gas. I don’t even want to get into foreigners getting their hands on pressure cookers.
Milo Yiannopoulos:
“The American Left, the Progressive Left, the Social Justice Left hates women, gays and minorities. It is a band of spoiled brat white liberals who care for nothing except their own self esteem. They don’t care about anything but feeling good about themselves and advertising their own moral virtue to everybody else.” And, while they’re doing it they are denying the rights of minorities to protect themselves, they are denying minorities to be informed about the risks that are out there.”
I have an AR-15, but I don’t own an assault weapon.
Rights stealing politicians aren’t enough of a reason? And no I don’t own assault “weapons”.
We don’t need a reason. We just want to.
To become a Marine, Moulton swore an oath.
To become a progressive pinko, Moulton violated that oath.
The words “shall not be infringed” appear in that Constitution you swore to “support and defend” sir.
I live in a state in America where many of ‘ the locals ‘ [ read: people of color - non Caucasian ] proudly display on the vehicles small and large decals stating “ Defend Hawaii “ Others wear clothing expressing the same message . Having lived here over 40 years I have to ask myself “ defend from whom or what ?” Sadly , I can only assume that the messaging refers to ‘haoles’ , to ‘defend Hawaii from Haole ‘ Now guess what the main feature of this message is , the ‘logo’ as it were ? A CAR-15 ( or M-4 ) carbine . The direct implication is that all ‘locals’ will be prepared ( and willing?) to confront ‘haoles’ with assault carbines , if & when necessary . And so are all the good white folks expected to hope that day never comes and take no counter measures in the meantime ? I wonder .....But I will tell you this ; No matter what laws get passed in D.C. by the politically correct pinhead sheep politicians , there wil noto be one armed ‘local’ in Hawaii turning in nothing , should any bans be instituted . And I doubt there will be darned few Hawaii law enforcement going around to their cousins trying to round up any that happen to be registered . They might go around to the ‘haoles’ , but not to the ‘locals ‘ . You can take that to the bank.... News from the far western front of the information battlespace