Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

'Assault Weapons,' Explained

How a scary name for an arbitrary group of firearms distorts the gun control debate

James Huberty, a 41-year-old survivalist who had recently lost his job as a security guard, spent the morning of July 18, 1984, at the San Diego Zoo with his wife, Etna, and their two daughters. The family ate lunch at a McDonald's restaurant in the Clairemont neighborhood before returning to their home in San Ysidro. After Etna lay down to rest, Huberty approached her and said, "I want to kiss you goodbye." When she asked him where he was going, he said he was "hunting humans."

Just before 4 p.m., Huberty drove his black Mercury Marquis sedan to a San Ysidro McDonald's, where he used three guns—a Browning 9mm pistol, a Winchester 12-gauge shotgun, and an Uzi 9mm semi-automatic carbine—to shoot 40 people. Twenty-one of them died, including an 8-month-old boy and a 9-year-old girl. Seventy-eight minutes after the shooting began, a police sniper killed Huberty with a single shot to the chest.

California Assemblyman Art Agnos, a San Francisco Democrat who would later serve as that city's mayor, cited the San Ysidro massacre as an argument for his 1985 bill banning what he called "assault weapons"—semi-automatic versions of military firearms, such as the Uzi used by Huberty. Unlike the rifles that soldiers carry, which are capable of automatic or burst fire (i.e., holding down the trigger fires either a continuous stream or a short series of rounds), these civilian models fire just one round per trigger pull. But Agnos thought they should be regulated as strictly as machine guns, which ordinary civilians cannot legally possess in California without a permit that is essentially impossible to obtain.

"The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people," Agnos told the Assembly Public Safety Committee in June 1985. San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara concurred. "These are weapons of war," he said. "They are made to kill people, and they are all over California. There is no legitimate use for these. Nobody hunts deer with them."

Thus began a long-running public policy fraud that was revived once again after the attack that killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14. "From Aurora to Sandy Hook, San Bernardino to Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs to Parkland, one common thread that runs through mass shootings is the use of AR-15 military-style assault weapons," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) said a week after the Parkland massacre. "These weapons are designed to kill the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time, and we need to get these weapons of war off our streets."

"The weapons' menacing looks," one influential activist wrote, "coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons…can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

Although "assault weapons" fire no faster than any other semi-automatic, such as a Glock 19 pistol or a Ruger 10/22 hunting rifle, politicians routinely conflate them with machine guns, which have not been legally produced for civilians in the United States since 1986. Prohibitionists like Feinstein argue that "assault weapons" are good for nothing but mass shootings and gang warfare, despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of these guns are ever used to commit crimes. They say these firearms are "weapons of choice" for mass shooters, who are in fact much more likely to use handguns, and claim they are uniquely deadly, even though the category is defined based on features that make little or no difference in the hands of a murderer.

Josh Sugarmann, founder and executive director of the Violence Policy Center, laid out this strategy of misdirection and obfuscation in a 1988 report on "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America." Sugarmann observed that "the weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

He added that because "few people can envision a practical use for these guns," the public should be more inclined to support a ban on "assault weapons" than a ban on handguns. While handguns are by far the most common kind of firearm used to commit crimes, they are also the most popular choice for self-defense. Proscribing "assault weapons" therefore sounds more reasonable.

This approach has been intermittently effective. In CBS News polls since 1995, public support for banning "assault weapons" has ranged from 44 percent to 70 percent. Quinnipiac University polls since 2013 have consistently found majority support for a nationwide "assault weapon" ban, peaking at 67 percent in a survey conducted a few days after the Parkland shooting. The perpetrator of that attack, Nikolas Cruz, used a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle, which is similar to the Colt AR-15, a semi-automatic version of the M16 carried by U.S. soldiers.

Politicians, like voters, tend to see mass shootings as evidence in favor of banning military-style rifles. Although Agnos' bill was rejected by the California Assembly in 1985, the legislature approved a similar ban in 1989. That was the year a 24-year-old drifter named Patrick Purdy used a Norinco Type 56S rifle, a semi-automatic version of a Chinese gun modeled after the AK-47, in an attack that killed five children at a Stockton elementary school. Since then, six other states—Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York—have followed California's example, often enacting or broadening bans after mass shootings. In 1994, Congress passed a federal "assault weapon" ban sponsored by Feinstein.

Joanna AndreassonJoanna AndreassonThe federal law, which expired in 2004, banned production and sale of 18 firearm brands or models by name, along with "copies or duplicates" of them. The law also covered guns meeting specified criteria. Any semi-automatic rifle that accepted detachable magazines, for example, was deemed an "assault weapon" if it had two or more of five listed features: a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a grenade launcher, or a "flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor."

There is little evidence that the "assault weapon" ban had an impact on gun deaths. "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence," University of Pennsylvania criminologist Christopher Koper and two co-authors wrote in a 2004 report commissioned by the National Institute of Justice. "There has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury." They concluded that "should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."

Casting about for evidence that the law accomplished something, Feinstein cites research by Louis Klarevas, a global affairs lecturer at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. In his 2016 book Rampage Nation, Klarevas attributes a 37 percent drop in mass shooting deaths between 1994 and 2004 to the "assault weapon" ban. But as the journalist Jon Stokes pointed out in the Los Angeles Times last March, the decline cited by Klarevas involves crimes that were committed mostly with weapons unaffected by the ban. Furthermore, the decrease disappears if you use the most widely accepted definition of a mass shooting, which requires four or more deaths, rather than Klarevas' cutoff of six. In other words, the drop is apparent only if you ignore mass shootings with four or five deaths.

It is hardly surprising that Feinstein's ban does not seem to have had a significant impact on public safety. To begin with, the targeted firearms were used in only 2 percent or so of gun crimes before the law passed, according to most studies. Feinstein claimed guns covered by the revised ban she introduced in 2013 were involved in "at least" 385 murders from 2004 through 2011, a period when the FBI counted more than 76,000 gun homicides. That means "assault weapons" were used in something like 0.5 percent of gun homicides during that period.

Joanna AndreassonJoanna AndreassonAccording to the FBI, rifles of all kinds (not just the ones Feinstein wants to ban) accounted for just 3 percent of firearm homicides in 2016, while handguns accounted for 65 percent. The rest of the firearms were listed as shotguns (2.4 percent), "other guns" (1.7 percent), and unspecified (28 percent).

Contrary to the impression left by press coverage highlighting scary-looking rifles, handguns are also the most common choice for mass shooters. A Mother Jones review of mass shootings from 1982 through 2012 found that 66 percent of the weapons were handguns, while just 14 percent would qualify as "assault weapons" under the definition used in Feinstein's 2013 bill.

As of mid-March, according to the updated Mother Jones database, the share of mass shooters' weapons covered by Feinstein's bill had risen to 26 percent. But that change was mostly due to the 22 military-style rifles that police found in the hotel suite and adjacent room from which Stephen Paddock fired on a crowd of country music fans in Las Vegas last October. No other modern mass shooting has involved anywhere near that many guns, and police have not said how many of them Paddock actually fired. Excluding that outlier, "assault weapons" accounted for 19 percent of firearms used in mass shootings, which in turn represent a tiny share of gun homicides—0.6 percent in 2016.

No one could have reasonably expected that the 1994 ban would eliminate even the small subset of gun crimes committed with the weapons it covered, since the law exempted firearms people already owned. By Koper's estimate, that grandfather clause left more than 1.5 million "assault weapons" in circulation.

After the law expired, sales of previously banned rifles exploded. Based on production and import data from 1990 through 2016, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, estimates that Americans own more than 16 million guns that politicians would deem "assault weapons," which the industry prefers to call "modern sporting rifles." Feinstein's proposed ban, like the 1994 law, would not apply to those firearms. If grandfathered guns undermined the original ban, that problem is more than 10 times as big today.

Even if the 1994 ban had made all of the targeted guns disappear, there would have been plenty of equally lethal alternatives available to mass murderers or gang members. Gun control advocates frequently complained that firearm manufacturers got around the law by making minor, functionally unimportant changes to their products. Bushmaster, for instance, introduced the XM-15 rifle, a ban-compliant version of the AR-15. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence notes that it was "functionally equivalent in all relevant respects to its banned cousin." But if companies could legally produce guns that were just as deadly as the ones covered by the ban, that was an indictment of the law, not the manufacturers who complied with it.

The supposedly improved ban that Feinstein is pushing now casts a wider net but suffers from the same basic flaw: It defines the prohibited guns based on features with little or no functional significance in the context of mass shootings or other violent crimes. The bill covers "157 dangerous military-style assault weapons" by name (up from 18) and defines the targeted firearms more broadly. Semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines qualify if they have one or more (rather than two) of six (up from five) specified characteristics.

The forbidden features are somewhat different but still pretty puzzling. Feinstein no longer thinks we need to worry about bayonet mounts, but she is now sounding the alarm about the ominous barrel shroud, a covering that protects the shooter's hand from the heat generated by firing a rifle. She also has added rocket launchers to the equally fanciful grenade launchers as prohibited accessories. Crimes committed with rifle-mounted grenade or rocket launchers are about as common in the United States as crimes committed with rifle-mounted bayonets. Even if someone decided to attach a grenade or rocket launcher to his rifle, he would have a hard time finding something to launch with it, since both grenades and rockets are strictly regulated as "destructive devices" under the National Firearms Act.

"Defining an assault weapon—in legal terms—is not easy," Josh Sugarmann warned back in 1988. "It's not merely a matter of going after guns that are 'black and wicked looking.'" Yet that is basically what Feinstein and likeminded state legislators have done. To give you a sense of how arbitrary Feinstein's distinctions are, her bill specifically exempts the Iver Johnson M1 carbine and the Ruger Mini-14 rifle, but only when they have fixed stocks. Adding a folding or adjustable stock to these rifles transforms them from legitimate firearms into proscribed "assault weapons," even though that change does not make them any more lethal or suitable for mass murder. A folding stock makes a rifle shorter for transport or storage, while an adjustable stock allows a more comfortable fit for shooters of different sizes.

Many supporters of "assault weapon" bans seem confused about what they entail. In a widely mocked 2007 interview on MSNBC, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D–N.Y.), who had introduced a bill that would have banned semi-automatic rifles with barrel shrouds, confessed, "I actually don't know what a barrel shroud is. I'm assuming it's a shoulder thing that goes up." Politicians such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton often say "machine guns" or "automatic weapons" when they are talking about semi-automatic rifles. According to a Reason-Rupe survey conducted around the time that Feinstein introduced her 2013 bill, about two-thirds of Americans mistakenly thought "assault weapons" fire faster than other guns, hold more rounds, or use higher-caliber ammunition. The respondents who harbored these misconceptions were especially likely to say such guns should be banned.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, who had introduced a bill that would have banned semi-automatic rifles with barrel shrouds, confessed, "I actually don't know what a barrel shroud is. I'm assuming it's a shoulder thing that goes up."

People who know better may nevertheless support "assault weapon" bans as a tactic for achieving more stringent gun restrictions down the road. "No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished," The Washington Post editorialized after President Bill Clinton signed the 1994 ban into law. "Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."

The faulty logic of such legislation actually works to the benefit of those who support "broader gun control." Once people realize that banning these firearms has no measurable effect on violence, they may be primed to accept more ambitious measures. At the same time, if the flimsy arguments in favor of "assault weapon" bans are enough for them to survive judicial review, the Second Amendment barriers to gun control will be eroded.

Federal appeals courts rejected constitutional challenges to the 1994 law, but that was before the Supreme Court ruled, in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns for self-defense in the home. In 2015, the Supreme Court declined to review a decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld a ban on "assault weapons" imposed by Highland Park, Illinois. Justice Clarence Thomas vigorously objected, noting that the ban covered "many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic firearms." The Supreme Court's overturning of the D.C. handgun ban in 2008, Thomas said, made it clear that the Second Amendment encompasses firearms "commonly used for a lawful purpose." Yet the 7th Circuit had upheld Highland Park's ban based on nothing more than "speculation about the law's potential policy benefits," including the possibility that it "may increase the public's sense of safety."

That highly deferential approach should alarm anyone who values the constitutional right to armed self-defense. "If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all)," Thomas wrote, "then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing."

Photo Credit: Zach Gibson/Getty

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Michael Hihn||

    although "assault weapons" fire no faster than any other semi-automatic,

    Strawman fallacy. Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment. Not since 1939 (US v Miller), later confirmed by Scalia's Heller ruling
    These are key sections of each ruling, with links to complete text.

    Heller, Page 1, Paragraph 2(f)
    ... United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies
    Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons


    Cont'd
  • Michael Hihn||

    2/2

    US v Miller (1939)
    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.

    Miller includes over a dozen cites from "the Convention, history and legislation of colonies and states, and … approved commentators" -- which Doherty has again "forgotten" to include. Please check those lengthy examples, when the inevitable guntard rage and bullshit erupts.

  • Jay Dubya||

    you have heard of a strawman fallacy. perhaps you should familiarize yourself with petitio principii. opponents of gun control assert that US courts have systematically eroded the plainly stated 2nd amendment through sophistry, first in defense of the racist goal of disarming asians, indians & former slaves, then in defense of the racist goal of disarming black communities in the midst of the civil rights struggle & most recently as part of a complete erosion of human rights that subordinates basic rights such as self defense, self determination, privacy & property to the convenience of an ever-growing & all-encompassing beaurocratic state. afterall all, why do you need an assault weapon to defend yourself? thats what the (dog & child killing, old lady beating, charge inflating) police are for. right?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Evasion. Scalia says you're wrong, and I linked to it as proof.
    You have ... nothing but slogans and soundbites

  • Cy||

    I'm not surprised you consider the Bill of Rights falls into the "slogans and soundbites" category. I'm sure it's right there next to every other reality you find inconvenient to your narrative.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'm not surprised you consider the Bill of Rights falls into the "slogans and soundbites" category

    I'm not surprised that you lied about what he said.

    I'm sure it's right there next to every other reality you find inconvenient to your narrative.

    My "reality" is Supreme Court decisions. What's yours?

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'm not surprised you consider the Bill of Rights falls into the "slogans and soundbites" category

    I'm not surprised that you lied about what he said.

    I'm sure it's right there next to every other reality you find inconvenient to your narrative.

    My "reality" is Supreme Court decisions. What's yours?

  • Cy||

    "My "reality" is Supreme Court decisions. What's yours?"

    The founders. The men who wrote the Constitution of the United States. The men who just got done fighting a war against an oppressor. Do you really think they'd write down something so clearly because they wanted someone to "interpret it?"

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    It's pretty fucking clear.

    You can blather about all of the Supreme Court decisions and your feelings and statistics; you can even jerk off to Hitler porn on the Lincoln memorial, it's not going to change what those men did and why they wrote that the way they did. They knew cowards like you, they just got done fighting a war against them.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "My "reality" is Supreme Court decisions. What's yours?"

    The founders. The men who wrote the Constitution of the United States.

    Do I believe Antonin Scalia or ... you?

    Buh-bye

  • Cy||

    I'm glad you made it clear that you need someone else to interpret:

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    It speaks volumes to the type of person you are and your intelligence level.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It speaks volumes to the type of person you are and your intelligence level.

    (laughing)

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Watch the guntards fuck THAT up!!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part:

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

  • ||

    Watch the guntards fuck THAT up!!

    Why- you've seem to have "fucked' it up pretty well.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    LibSoc SJW Gun Control Cabal propagandist/quisling Michael Hihn wrote:

    "weapons used by the militia"

    And just who are "the militia," Michael?

    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
    –George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

    "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
    –"Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788

    "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
    Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom?
    Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia.
    Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
    — Tench Coxe, 1788.

    [Continuing]

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    [Continued]

    The modern answer to "Who are the militia?" is codified here:

    10 U.S.C. §311 - Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    [Continuing]

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    [Continued]

    CAVEAT, Michael; before you jump all over that "under 45 years of age" part, consider that this statute was written in 1919 and was last amended in 1993 and, as such, does not reflect the numerous 'age discrimination' and 'gender discrimination' court rulings established post-1993.

    Now, Michael; can you quote a court ruling holding that members of the 'unorganized militia' are precluded from exercising their 2nd Amendment 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms'?

    Meanwhile:

    "The importance of this article [the 2nd Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any person. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation of and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
    –Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"

    "The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to 'raise and support'. Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government."
    –Second Amendment scholar Daniel J. Schultz

  • Michael Hihn||

    Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?

    Not for 2A.

    The modern answer to "Who are the militia?" is codified her

    Totally useless. EVERYTHING is at the 1800s ... that's BOTH rulings

    I prepared this reading lesson for your other question.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    Me: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?

    MH: "Not for 2A."

    On what do you base that claim, Mikey?

    Me: "The modern answer to "Who are the militia?" is codified here"

    MH: "Totally useless. EVERYTHING is at the 1800s ... that's BOTH rulings"

    §311 of Title 10 of the United States Code - 'Militia: composition and classes' - is current as of 30 Nov., 1993 (107 Stat. 1656), Mikey.

    And for you, the 'chronologically challenged' one here, that is quite a bit later than "the 1800s."

  • Michael Hihn||

    On what do you base that claim, Mikey?

    That fuckhead attitude is why you made a TOTAL fool of yourself ... with your bat-shit crazy claim about the Google search.... which PROVES you a liar of truly psychopathic proportions

    Your massive screwup on the Heller text was at least just DUMB ... but not a psycho lie. (I presume)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Cy
    I'm not surprised you consider the Bill of Rights falls into the "slogans and soundbites" category

    Hihn:
    I'm not surprised that you lied about what he said.

    Cy's BULLSHIT started there, with intimidation (which also failed), and continued as he stalked me down the.page.

    Is he a fuckhead? See for yourself. The TWO exchanges begin here. Jay Dubya's and my response.
    True or false? ONLY a fuckhead would accuse me of ..... "consider(ing) the Bill of Rights falls into the 'slogans and soundbites' category."

    The defense rests
    (flush)

  • SH68137||

    "My "reality" is Supreme Court decisions. What's yours?"

    Natural Law & G*D, trumps people in black robes.

  • Michael Hihn||

    SHITS ON THE CONSTITUTION

    "My "reality" is Supreme Court decisions. What's yours?"

    Natural Law & G*D, trumps people in black robes.

    (laughing) ... as determined by SCOTUS, That's their function.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    The only part that actually counts:

    Michael Hihn|5.14.18 @ 10:49AM|#

    SHITS ON THE CONSTITUTION

  • Michael Hihn||

    SHITS ON THE CONSTITUTION

    "My "reality" is Supreme Court decisions. What's yours?"

    Natural Law & G*D, trumps people in black robes.

    (laughing) ... as determined by SCOTUS, That's their function.

  • Michael Hihn||

    SHITS ON THE CONSTITUTION

    "My "reality" is Supreme Court decisions. What's yours?"

    Natural Law & G*D, trumps people in black robes.

    (laughing) ... as determined by SCOTUS, That's their function.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Hey look, Mary Stack is back. Mary, why do you keep dragging Michael's name through the mud by posting crazy, non-libertarian comments that damage the libertarian brand? Michael has worked tirelessly for the libertarian cause for decades, and has all these credentials, and you come on here and steal his name and post things that make no sense. Stop it, Mary!

  • Michael Hihn||

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano cites Supreme Court decisions he never reads.

  • ||

    My "reality" is Supreme Court decisions. What's yours?

    Then you are living in an alternative reality. The reality of this world has the SC decisions saying the opposite of what you think they say.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • plusafdotcom||

    Re: the proverbial Hihnism... "...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."...

    AR-type weapons and semi-automatic pistols with large-capacity magazines ARE "in common use at [this] time", so that alleged 'argument' doesn't hold water, either, not that that would make any difference to him.

    Not to mention that the SC occasionally reverses other SC decisions as culture and precedent change, too. He misses the concept that Those Black Robes do NOT convey omniscience to those who wear them, nor all-encompassing wisdom, either.

    In too many cases, those robes merely provide the power to enforce the biases that the Supremes brought to the party.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's SCALIA! (sneer)

    Re: the proverbial Hihnism... "...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."...

    But don't let facts interrupt an unprovoked assault

    Authoritarian Right = Authoritarian Left.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Michael Hihn||

    There was a National Guard in the 1700s! Who knew?

    But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification

    Now a comparison

    it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

    Small arms could mot be used against miodern-day bombers and tanks ... but that doesn't matter.

    But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    The right CANNOT be changed nu modern weaponry advances.
    Also, Miller specifies NON-military weapons as the INTENTIONAL standard fot the 1700s militia.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • ||

    Scalia says you're wrong, and I linked to it as proof.

    It's weird how you keep saying this when Scalia, in the same case, rather plainly refutes your conclusions and, probably more telling, the Justices who knew him best would tell you to your face that you're full of shit.

    You're not a libertarian socially or fiscally. Removing the rifles that you and the left want removed would be both phenomenally expensive but would leave only Police Officers and soldiers in possession of said weapons, which would be phenomenally oppressive. I never met the original Michael Hihn, but he was a bit curmudgeon-y. This is just around-the-bend lunacy. Whatever your cause is, stop posting, you're doing it a disservice.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's weird how you keep saying this when Scalia, in the same case, rather plainly refutes your conclusions and, probably more telling, the Justices who knew him best would tell you to your face that you're full of shit.

    (snort)

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Goobers will say THAT means the opposite of what it says!

  • ||

    Goobers will say THAT means the opposite of what it says!

    I didn't say anything, Scalia et al. did. What I said is whatever you think your cause is, you're doing it a disservice. There are several issues at play in Heller and your selective reading of some plays against your selective reading of others. If you're saying that "citizens are the militia and both individual citizens and the militia have no unfettered right to bear arms", your assertion is in direct opposition to the outcome of the case. Otherwise, between individuals and militias, there is a relatively unfettered right to bear arms as that was the decision. Moreover, your argument assumes that the SCOTUS is infallible which is easily demonstrated as a falsehood.

    Continue to post, you're only making yourself look more unhinged and the facts more clear and easily accessible to anyone with half a brain.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's weird how you keep saying this when Scalia, in the same case, rather plainly refutes your conclusions and, probably more telling, the Justices who knew him best would tell you to your face that you're full of shit.

    (snort)

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Goobers will say THAT means the opposite of what it says!

  • ||

    No, YOU say its the opposite of what it says.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop, goober

  • Michael Hihn||

    No, YOU say its the opposite of what it says.

    I am CALLING YOU OUT ... as a bullshitter and/or cyber-bully

    PROVE IT
    and stop yet damn whining, all up and down the page.
    You're a DISGRACE to the REAL Patrick Henry.

    (self-defense from multiple aggressions)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Goobers will say THAT means the opposite of what it says!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • ||

    You linked nothing that says what you think it says.

    Semiautos are clearly protected. In fact, under Miller, automatics would be protected.

    Try again!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Try again!

    (snort)
    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • plusafdotcom||

    ... and why does he think that copy/pasting the same text, over and over again, proves his non-point any better!?

  • plusafdotcom||

    ... and why does he think that copy/pasting the same text, over and over again, proves his non-point any better!?

  • plusafdotcom||

    ... and why does he think that copy/pasting the same text, over and over again, proves his non-point any better!?

  • plusafdotcom||

    Damned browser and lousy response time of Reason's servers.... Where's the delete selection for one's own posts?

    Software/Programming/Design Fail!

  • Michael Hihn||

    I must keep proving you're full of shit.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I must keep proving you're full of shit.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    You sayin' that into a mirror?

  • Michael Hihn||

    . and why does he think that copy/pasting the same text, over and over again, proves his non-point any better!?

    No .. it's because DUMBFUCKS keep repeating the same bullshit and INFANTILE unprovoked assaults.

    DO YOU HEAR ME NOW?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd
    You linked nothing that says what you think it says.

    YOU HAVE BEEN CALLED OUT AS A LIAR .... AND FAILED TO SUPPORT YOUR LIE ... WHILE I CITE EXACT RULINGS, WITH LINKS TO ORIGINAL SOURCES.

    WILL YOU REMAIN A PUSSY ... OR ACT LIKE A MAN? WHEN?

    "Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah" is NOT an argument. And it's infantile.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks Scalia supported gun bans.

  • Michael Hihn||

    HE said he did

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks Scalia supported semi-automatic rifle bans.

  • Whorton||

    Quoting Miller in dictum is the ultimate straw man fallacy.

    Does one really need to point out that the defendant in Miller did not even bother to show up, either in person or via council to the proceedings?

    Or more importantly, that "judicial notice" was not given (as a result of Miller not showing up) that "sawed off shotguns" were in common use as trench guns during WWI.

    But then, we also know that the First Amendment never contemplated the copying machine, radio, television or the internet. Nudge-nudge. . .

  • Michael Hihn||

    ANOTHER CRAZY GUNTARD! ... ONE OF THE ABSOLUTE WACKIEST

    Quoting Miller in dictum is the ultimate straw man fallacy.

    YOU SAY JUSTICE SCALIA WAS STOOOPID ... OR IS IT ,,, YOU>?

    Does one really need to point out that the defendant in Miller did not even bother to show up, either in person or via council to the proceedings?

    EVEN IF TRUE ... WAS THERE A RULING?
    IS IT A BINDING PRECEDENT?

    Or more importantly, that "judicial notice" was not given (as a result of Miller not showing up) that "sawed off shotguns" were in common use as trench guns during WWI.

    WWII WOULD NOT AFFECT THE RULING IN ANY WAY

    BUT YOU ARE CORRECT THAT OBAMA IS A MUSLIM FROM KENYA ...

    ***NOW **** FOR **** SUPER **** FUCKABILITY.!!!!!~!

    But then, we also know that the First Amendment never contemplated the copying machine, radio, television or the internet. Nudge-nudge. . .

    SCALIA RIDICULED THAT "ARGUMENT" AS FRIVOLOUS Full portion at the link. this is how he concludes

    just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search

    Nudge Nudge

    Say hi to Alex Jones.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    Whorton wrote: "Or more importantly, that 'judicial notice' was not given (as a result of Miller not showing up) that "sawed off shotguns" were in common use as trench guns during WWI."

    Michale Hinn responded with: "WWII WOULD NOT AFFECT THE RULING IN ANY WAY"

    Not only did Michael demonstrate his lack of reading comprehension – reading "WWI" as "WWII" – he also demonstrates his overall lack of firearms knowledge by not realizing that "short-barreled shotguns" were in use two CENTURIES before "WWI"; back when they were known as the "blunderbuss":

    http://www.imfdb.org/images/6/6b/Blun_Flint.jpg

    The new U.S. Navy and its Marine Corps used them during "boarding parties" onto British Navy ships during the Revolutionary War.

  • Michael Hihn||

    How did that change the ruling

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    Try this, Michael:

    "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

    –District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia—Majority Opinion

  • Michael Hihn||

    I already posted that. Let's break it down. And add Miller which be easier for you.

    "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

    That's the issue, which he dismisses.

    But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's 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.

    Weapons in common use in the 1800s. Mikller and his page 1.

    It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.

    PERHAPS only more sophisticated weapons can be as EFFECTIVE. AND

    Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

    The modern equivalent of a musket may be USELESS against today's bombers and tanks.

    BUT

    But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    NONE of that can change how the right is interpreted (in Miller)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Miller (core)

    (historical records) 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

    1) "these men" are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by "when called for service" for the 1800s militia.

    2) "common use at the time" .... all one sentence ... the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence. So it's "in common use" AT RATIFICATION.

    And THAT ruling is where YOUR comment began. -- weapons equivalent to the 1800s militia,

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    "weapons equivalent to the 1800s militia"

    And yet you post this using technology that was not present during the 18th century when both the 2nd and 1st Amendments were drafted, passed and ratified, Michael.

    You are being hypocritical here, IMHO.

    So put away your computer and break out the period's "communications devices": quill pen, iron ball ink and parchment paper – or admit that the Bill of Rights is not "era-limited."

  • Michael Hihn||

    Already ridiculed as "frivolous" by Scalia WITHIN Heller

    Page 8, Heller ruling, Scalia
    (Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous).... Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search

    No goobers, That means modern versions of the musket. Per page one.

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:> ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    MH, quoting Justice Scalia, wrote: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause."

    Problem here for your theory is that Justice Scalia was WRONG! M16 Selective-Fire Assault Rifles are NOT "banned" — never have been. They are merely tightly controlled under the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986.

    Next 'strawman,' Mikey?

    MH: "NONE of that can change how the right is interpreted (in Miller)"

    What firearms were "banned" by 'US. v. Miller', Mikey?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Problem here for your theory is that Justice Scalia was WRONG!

    But you're NOT a bat-shit crazy psycho/stalker.
    (sneer)

  • Michael Hihn||

    CLARIFY: It's never my INTENTION to ridicule the mentally handicapped, like Juanito, but ... cannot avoid. .MY EMPHASIS HIGHLIGHTs HIS LATEST DUMBFUCKERY

    MH, quoting Justice Scalia, wrote: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause."

    (FUCKHEAD)Problem here for your theory is that Justice Scalia was WRONG!

    (snort)

    M16 Selective-Fire Assault Rifles are NOT "banned" — never have been.

    (ridicule) IF and MAY BE banned..

    Next 'strawman,' Mikey?

    PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!

    My Scalia cite HUMILIATES HIM. So he LIES about what I commented on--- for ANOTHER dumbfuck assault,

    (Scalia) But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    (hihn) NONE of that (modern developments) can change how the right is interpreted (in Miller)

    CRAZY TIME!

    What firearms were "banned" by 'US. v. Miller', Mikey?

    NONE FUCKHEAD .... NOBODY SAID OTHERWISE

    *****HE WAS JUSTIFYING WHY M-16'S COULD BE BANNED UNDER Miller-Heller. PISSES OFF GUNTARDS

    **** GUN BANS ARE CREATED BY LAWS ... NOT BY SCOTUS RULINGS

    Love and kisses,
    -Mikey

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano says Scalia was saying something other than what he was actually saying.

  • DesigNate||

    You are, quite possibly, the dumbest motherfucker to ever post here.

    Quite a feat when going up against Tony, shriek, etc.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Undeniable proof REALLY pisses off goobers on the Authoritarian Right.
    They run in a pack, like wild dogs.
    Conservatards.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his dumbfuck sockpuppet.

  • Naaman Brown||

    If called to militia duty, the militia members were expected to muster with the military arms of their day, guns they owned and trained with. The goal was to be able to raise a voluntary force from people familiar with the use of arms -- there is precious little time available in a time of national emergency for extensive marksmanship training. That is why the National Rifle Association of Great Britain was formed in 1858 and why the NRA of America was formed in 1871. To encourage civilian marksmanship training with the military service rifle of the day. Support for the militia does not negate other lawful and tradition uses of arms including self-defense. In fact, hunting and recreational shooting improves the proficiency in arms among the citizenry available to volunteer or be conscripted in to military service. Today the equivalent of the musket or rifle owned by a 1700s citizen would be the Modern Sporting Rifle equivalent of the US military AR M4.

  • Michael Hihn||

    From Scalia's OPINION -- justifying his RULING.

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It says the exact opposite, troll

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    The problem with that theory ["weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned"], Michael, is that M16 assault rifles/machine guns are NOT "banned" and are in the hands of civilians in significant numbers; though thanks to corrupt former New Jersey Democrat William J. Hughes, they are pretty much "out of circulation," as their price is now well into five figures. 8-O

  • Michael Hihn||

    They CAN be banned TOMORROW .. and the NRA was HELPLESS against the Assault Weapons Ban .... for ten long years. It could ONLY be repealed or expire. It expired.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    MH wrote: "They CAN be banned TOMORROW"

    Here Mikey 'crawfishes' from his previous claim that M16s are "banned."

    "the NRA was HELPLESS against the Assault Weapons Ban .... for ten long years. It could ONLY be repealed or expire. It expired."

    The reasons it expired were:
    1) its history proved it was useless for its passed purpose: reducing crime;
    2) the surveys by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, the National Research Council and the National Institute of Justice proved #1 above;
    3) the NRA made sure all the politicians knew about #1 above;
    4) even AWB author Diane Feinswine couldn't muster enough support to reauthorize AWB`94; and
    5) her continuing attempts at passing AWB`17 (S.2095) is "DOA" in the Congress.

    Now, Mikey; you wanna reconsider your "They CAN be banned TOMORROW" claim above?

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    They CAN be banned TOMORROW .. and the NRA was HELPLESS against the Assault Weapons Ban .... for ten long years. It could ONLY be repealed or expire. It expired.

    The reasons it expired were:

    THE NRA WAS HELPLESS
    BECAUSE IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL!

    Now, Mikey; you wanna reconsider your "They CAN be banned TOMORROW" claim above?

    FUCKHEAD JUST ADMITTED IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
    IF IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL IT CAN BE BANNED TOMORROW.
    THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. SLICK. SO YOU'RE AGAIN A PSYCHO!

    Love and Kisses,
    -Mikey

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't know the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Does gun obntrol work?
    Inconvenient facts (fully documented)

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK

    Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be manipulated? Even a little? How would you know?

    FACT: England's 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    FACT: United States had 317 mass shootings from 1999-2013.
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years ... We had 317 in 14 years. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 22.6 per year = 11,300% higher (adjusted for population)
    Are those YOUR values on "sanctity of human life?"

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    (NOT advocating gun grabs, just providing the truth)

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Jordan||

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK

    Those places have lower violent crime rates than the U.S. in general.

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    Well, we already have a million gun control laws on the books.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Those places have lower violent crime rates than the U.S. in general.

    Why?

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute,

    Well, we already have a million gun control laws on the books.

    We agree on that!

  • Jordan||

    Why?

    You tell me. But guns aren't magic talismans that corrupt anybody in their vicinity.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why?

    You tell me.

    As I assumed.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Mary Stack - Michael Hihn = zero

  • Michael Hihn||

    ANOTHER ONE!!!

    Mary Stack - Michael Hihn = zero

    ABSOLUTE PROOF that Chipper Morning Baculum is a bat-shit crazy, delusional thug!!! ,

  • Shirley Knott||

    That is emphatically not what "unalienable" means.
    BTW, isn't the specific term used "inalienable"?

    Left = Right = Slavery

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's UNalienable in the Declaration, but they're interchangeable overall. Good luck arguing that unalienable rights are NOT absolute -- kissing away several centuries of natural rights/law.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Um, you're the one arguing that rights are not absolute.
    Good luck with that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think the argument is that they can't be taken away by government.

    Incidentally, a jury "of your peers" is by definition not the government.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Um, you're the one arguing that rights are not absolute.

    That's a lie.
    Are you retracting your falsehood on "unalienable?"

  • VinniUSMC||

    Michael Hihndumbfuck @9:10am That's a lie

    Michael Hihndumbfuck @8:11am Gun rights ate[sic] NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute

    Moron.

  • Shirley Knott||

    So you're not the one who asserted "Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute"?
    Get back on your meds you are clearly insane.

    What's lie did I tell? A question is not a lie.
    "Inalienable" does not mean what you assert it means.

  • Michael Hihn||

    A question is not a lie

    Do you still commit sexual abuse, regularly, on 7 year old boys?

    Is THAT a lie?

  • Michael Hihn||

    TWO SHAMEFUL LIARS PROVEN IN ONE COMMENT.

    VINNIusmc (also a stalker)
    Michael Hihndumbfuck @8:11am "Gun rights ate[sic] NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute"

    WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID

    "Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what 'unalienable' means"

    SHAME ON YOU

    Moron.

    LYING SACK OF SHIT.
    LISTEN AND LEARN

    "WHEN" is all caps. DOES THAT TELL YOU ANYTHING? Anything at all? (smirk)
    They are NOT absolute, only WHEN they are in conflict. Without the conflict each one IS absolute ... BY THE DEFINITION OF UNALIENABLE
    Does is explode your "brain" .. a conflict between two absolute rights?

    Shirley Knott
    So you're not the one who asserted "Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute"?

    SAME LIE AS THE OTHER THUG.

    Get back on your meds you are clearly insane.

    I"M NO PSYCHO LIAR!
    Fuck off, sweaty .... errrr ... sweetie.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't know how the right to keep and bear arms and the right to life conflict.

  • Seamus||

    Jefferson wrote "inalienable," but the version that got printed (and the enrolled copy that's displayed in the National Archives) says "unalienable." (IIRC, the play and movie "1776" explained the difference as the result of John Adams' insistence that "unalienable" was the correct word, and getting the printer to spell it his way.)

  • Michael Hihn||

    What's lie did I tell? A question is not a lie.

    Do you still molest 7-year-old boys?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Do you still molest 7-year-old boys?

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano reveals his hobbies.

  • Seamus||

    Jefferson wrote "inalienable," but the version that got printed (and the enrolled copy that's displayed in the National Archives) says "unalienable." (IIRC, the play and movie "1776" explained the difference as the result of John Adams' insistence that "unalienable" was the correct word, and getting the printer to spell it his way.)

  • ||

    Can we get the stats without the major cities controlled by Democrats, with extensive gun control measures? I believe that number would plummet.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Relevance?

  • ||

    You would see the hilarious stat disparity. Large cities run by democrats appear to have the highest gun crimes, and tend to have the most stringent gun control. Factor out those cases and the US would't seem so dangerous relatively.
    The thing you statistical illiterates want is to turn the rest of the nation into the cases I'm factoring out.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Relevance?

  • Texasmotiv||

    Relevance being that the places within the US with more gun control tend to have more gun deaths.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Relevance to the issue???

    Let's debunk your brainwashing. In those CITIES and COUNTIES, somebody just has to go to the next city or state to buy all the guns they want ... which is an argument against LOCAL control ... BECAUSE it's local ..... so the failure is because they are NOT nationwide,

    Anything else?

    Guntards are as eager to be brainwashed as Bernietards,
    Left - Right = Zero

  • epsilon given||

    Fun Fact: Those people who go to the next city or state to buy all the guns they want, MAGICALLY only want to commit their murders in places where they CAN'T get all the guns they want.

    YET the places where you CAN get all the guns you want are MYSTERIOUSLY safer than the places where you CAN'T GET all the guns you want.

    It's funny how that turns out.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh look everybody, a statistical analysis of a qualitative issue.

    Even IF IF IF gun control meant more safety, how much people value freedom over safety is not quantifiable through homicide statistics.

    The argument that we'd be safer if only we gave in to authoritarianism may have statistical components, but it ultimately rests on a foundation of qualitative questions like whether we prefer freedom to security.

    Incidentally, how's it feel to be carrying water for authoritarianism?

  • 10mm||

    "The argument that we'd be safer if only we gave in to authoritarianism may have statistical components, but it ultimately rests on a foundation of qualitative questions like whether we prefer freedom to security."

    Hah, statistically if we gave into authoritarianism, we'd have 100's of millions of deaths as was seen in the 20th century; you don't even need the qualitative argument!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hah, statistically if we gave into authoritarianism, we'd have 100's of millions of deaths as was seen in the 20th century; you don't even need the qualitative argument!

    TWO THIRDS OF ALL AMERICANS WOULD BE KILLED, IF WE HAD "AUTHORITARIAN" GUN BAN.

    Which is crazier, authoritarianism or 2/3 of ll Americans shot to death>

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimping his gun ban again.

  • Michael Hihn||

    With data to support SOMETHING. It's called proof.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that he wants gun bans.

  • ||

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK

    1. Total intentional homicides, so not necessarily anything to do with guns.
    2. If you take the 5 most gun-controlled cities out of the US, we drop to around, if not below, the UK.
    3. If you include The Dependencies to the Crown as part of the UK, their murder rate reaches above even where we are now (of course, the US rate would rise similarly even though the parts we would include are nominally gun-free). Not because of guns or because of the actual number of murders but because of relative murders and math.
    4. In your 5-region plot of the world is, obviously, woefully lacking. Much of C. and S. America has gun control of the kind you advertise and falls well higher on this list than the meager 5-region narrative you espouse. Even if we just assume your 5-region model, it's not clear that Canada and the UK "have gun control" while the US and Europe "don't"? This is crappy, phoned in data at best.

  • TxJack 112||

    The only problem with you claim is your definition of mass shooting. There are not 22.6 mass shootings in the US every year. That number is from Everytown which includes any shooting involving 4 or more people and does not consider the cause. What they define as mass shootings in fact are crime related shootings. They do not point this out and instead imply they are random acts. As for the comparison between the US and UK, you focus on gun crime and totally ignore the massive increase is other violent crime. Stabbings have gotten so out of control, there is a move to ban them as well. In addition, what about all the terrorism in the UK? Has anyone been beheaded on a city street in the US? If you look at actual random, mass shootings in the US since 1980, there have only been 51. In Australia, where they banned guns in 1996, there have been 22 since 1980. If you adjust for population, the rate between the US and Australia is 1:12. Australia is far more violent. In addition over the weekend they had a mass shooting that killed 11, yet guns, ALL GUNS, are banned.

  • Michael Hihn||

    What they define as mass shootings in fact are crime related shootings.

    Ssays mass shootings are NOT crimes!

    They do not point this out and instead imply they are random actYOU SAID THAT IN PUBLIC!
  • Earth Skeptic||

    Intentional homicide rates, per 100,000 population (NHS):
    0.0 Wyoming
    0.0 North Dakota
    0.0 New Hampshire
    0.0 Vermont
    0.0 Maine

    Gun ownerships rates ranging from 30% of households (NH) to 60% (WY).

    Fuck you, Hihn.

  • ||

    The places that contribute the most to that 5.3 number are the places where gun control laws most emulate those in Europe, Asia, and the UK.

  • Michael Hihn||

    BECAUSE they're not nationwide. (snort)

    LOCAL gin control fails ... BECAUSE it's local ... people simply go to a nearby city or state to buy guns.
    Am I going too fast for you?

  • Brendan||

    Which suggests the people in those high crime areas are inherently more likely to commit murder than the people who live in the 'source' areas.
    What makes Boston residents so much more likely to murder people than Nashua residents?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Which suggests the people in those high crime areas are inherently more likely to commit murder than the people who live in the 'source' areas.

    I know why. You do not.

    What makes Boston residents so much more likely to murder people than Nashua residents?

    Comparing Boston to a city of ..... 86,000 ... is downright shameful ... and shows how gullible you were to (presumably) swallow the bullshit of a Democrat vs Republican City. (Apologies if my presumption is incorrect, but your story has ended the same way for several decades Dem/Rep)

    What you FAIL to grasp is that the "gun culture" in inner-cities is --- yes=--- for self-defense -- but don't stop when you hear what you want to hear.

    My turn:
    In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW

  • ||

    I know why. You do not.

    You know jack shit. You said above that Heller doesn't uphold a citizen's right to own a semi-automatic weapon when that was the specific outcome of the case.

    IComparing Boston to a city of ..... 86,000 ... is downright shameful ...
    My turn:

    You realize ignorant and shameless are not rare or desirable qualities, right? Again, what ever you're point is, you're doing it a disservice.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't understand sociology.

  • ||

    Am I going too fast for you?

    Too fast? No. Too stupid? Yes.

    So, your 'libertarian' solution is to apply the law in the far reaches of the countryside where it gets phenomenally more expensive and does vanishingly little good to the local people?

    If the libertarian brand is toxic, it's because of people like you.

    "Left - Right = 0" Hihn-brand special libertarianism < 0.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fuck you, Hihn.

    TOTALLY full of shit.
    And ZERO is also STUPID bullshit,

  • ||

    Relying on mass shootings is a poor vehicle to prove gun control works. Mass shootings are not about guns, but about culture.

    Besides, look at Paris. All their gun control stopped nothing.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (yawn) Robotic minds reciting sounbites.

  • epsilon given||

    (yawn) Robotic minds reciting sounbites.

    Indeed. If only Michael Hihn were to disappear from these pages, 90% of the soundbites recited by robotic minds would magically disappear!

  • KevinP||

    At the turn of the 20th century, the UK had virtually no gun control laws and very little crime. Any person could buy and carry a revolver in his pocket anywhere in the UK. The right to keep and bear arms was slowly extinguished over the 20th century while the crime rate has soared. See page 14 of this UK parliamentary report for a fascinating graph. It shows that the number of indictable offences per thousand population in 1900 was 2.4 and in 1997 the figure was 89.1 - an increase of 37-fold. Since the early 1960s, the homicide rate has more than doubled.

    UK House of Commons Library: A Century of Change: Trends in UK Statistics Since 1900 (see page 14)

  • Michael Hihn||

    You just HUMILIATED yourself PUBLICLY. There are NO such data for homicides. There are only "Indictable offences, Homicides and Police Numbers" ... page 14.

    The line graph shoes a HUGE reversal DOWNWARD --DID YOU EVEN LOOK? The words say this:

    Reported crime peaked in 1992 when 109.4 indictable offences were recorded per thousand population. A rising trend in reported crime began in 1954, when the figure was 9.7. Since 1992 (to 1997), the rising trend in reported crime has been reversed. Before 1992, the reported crime rate did not fall significantly at any time.

    It can be dangerous to post links you never read .. makes you LOOK like a fucking liar ,... when you're just a brainwashed puppet

    If you look for the truth, you see the truth. If you look for what you WANT to BELEEB, that's what you'll find.

    MY DATA STAND

  • LiborCon||

    In the period 2009-2015 there were 19 public mass shootings in Europe with a total of 319 fatalities.
    (Defined as four or more people killed.)

    flemish peace institute: https://tinyurl.com/ydyzu7r7

    In the 2016 Nice attack, 86 people were killed with a truck.
    So much for gun control saving lives.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So much for gun control saving lives.

    USELESS How many here?

    Inconvenient facts (fully documented)

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK

    FACT: England's 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    FACT: United States had 317 mass shootings from 1999-2013.
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years ... We had 317 in 14 years. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 22.6 per year = 11,300% higher (adjusted for population)
    Are those YOUR values on "sanctity of human life?"

    Inconvenient questions:

    1) If teachers are armed ... who will be killed first?

    2) MIGHT it be possible that we have so many ARMED bad guys ... BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work in both directions, like the nuclear arms race did?

    3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW

    4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks the right to bear arms and the right to life are in conflict.

  • DesigNate||

    My god, are you still pushing that whole "competing" rights thing when it comes to gun ownership?

    That's so three months ago.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    It's 400 years old, dumbass. Natural law.
    POOR LOSERS whine stupid shit like you did.

    Guntards be psycho

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

  • Michael Hihn||

    THANKS! He;s RIDICULING the RETARDS who say the limit -- which he ALSO states -- would mean flintlocks. (lol)

    The Fourth Amendment protects modern forms of search.
    The First Amendment protects modern forms of speech.
    And the Second Amendment modern forms of ... flintlocks.

    You CANNOT pull paragraphs out of context. BEARABLE arms are WHAT HE CONFIRMED

    One more time

    ... United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies
    Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

    I PREDICTED mind games!

    Anything else?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Yes. Your initial assertion that "Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment" is incorrect based on the ruling Scalia issued in Heller.

    Anything else?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yes. Your initial assertion that "Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment" is incorrect based on the ruling Scalia issued in Heller

    Evasion. Proven wrong here.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Fuck off slaver.

    The Second amendment protects modern forms of arms. (Notice that "flintlock" is not a word in the second amendment.)

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way."

    Learn to read, you ignorant, incompetent, overcompensating, annoying, whiny, stupid fucking bitch. Your own citation refutes your argument.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fuck off slaver.

    Cyber-bully bellows,

    The Second amendment protects modern forms of arms.

    That's what I said.

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way."

    YOU LIED ABOUT MY CITATION. AS PROVEN HERE.

    Learn to read, you ignorant, incompetent, overcompensating, annoying, whiny, stupid fucking bitch.

    ... I'm not a lying cyber-bully,

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    It's not evasion, you dolt. You cannot make the cites you quoted and the cite I quoted, both from Scalia in the same SCOTUS ruling, both true unless you conclude that the Second Amendment protects weapons in common use at the time, which means at whatever time the question of legality is taking place. Nowhere in the cites you quoted does Scalia specifically mention 'the time of Ratification' as you moronically indicate.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Nowhere in the cites you quoted does Scalia specifically mention 'the time of Ratification' as you moronically indicate.

    Ummm, putting it in quotes is a SHAMEFUL lie. THIRD TIME


    ... United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies
    Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time"finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

    YOUR version:

    "Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons (IN COMMON USE TODAY) find SUPPORT in the historical tradition of PROHIBITING the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    So .... you argue ... the historic prohibition on carrying dangerous and unusual weapons SUPPORTS NO PROHIBITIONS NOW.

    You're done.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Where did Scalia say, EXACTLY, "the time of Ratification" in the Heller ruling, you dumbass? And I mean I want to see THOSE. EXACT. FUCKING. WORDS. quoted as part of the ruling.

    Anything less than that should be taken by the entire commentariat as an admission on your part of being a clinically insane, patently mendacious, shit-licking troglodyte.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Where did Scalia say, EXACTLY, "the time of Ratification" in the Heller ruling, you dumbass? And I mean I want to see THOSE. EXACT. FUCKING. WORDS. quoted as part of the ruling

    FOURTH NOTICE,
    You're STILL a shameful liar about what I said.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieks for his gun bans.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (laughing)

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Goobers will say THAT means the opposite of what it says!

    And your link is STILL a shameful lie,

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part:

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    If every sane person here marks this fucktard Hihn's scatalogical posts as spam, can we get him banned?

    Please?

  • ||

    Evasion. Proven wrong here.

    You didn't prove anything wrong, Heller restored a citizen's the right to keep semi-automatic weapons. It's the very weapons in question that Heller owned and D.C. said he couldn't. Heller was a retired police officer and required to carry a semi-automatic handgun as part of his job. A semi-automatic that he was prevented from keeping himself, as a private citizen, in his home.

    It's like you only read the parts you liked and ignored literally everything else about the case. Scalia could've handed Dick Anthony Heller an AR-15, shook his hand, and jokingly said "Go in peace, but don't shoot anybody with this!" and you'd have construed it as Federal condemnation of anything but flintlock muskets.

  • operagost||

    What is a modern flintlock?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Presumably a single-shot rifle. Actually,. that's self-evident.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, Hihn does not get to define our rights by his bad presumptions.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's Scalia's Heller ruling. Here's more.

    (pees pants laughing)

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Goobers will say THAT means the opposite of what it says!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part:

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

  • 10mm||

    Wait, what if I have a single shot rifle with a pistol grip, is that self evident?

    What about a 5 round capacity bolt action rifle?

    Shotguns?

    Or do you have some sort of historical record that can tie a flintlock directly to, and ONLY to, a single shot rifle?

    How about the Puckle gun??

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling. (smirk)
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • 10mm||

    Good job not answering. Copy/paste and bold text.

    You keep saying it's self evident that Scalia mean single shot rifles.

    Please define single shot rifle.

    Please define historic weapons used by the militia. Puckle gun was used, and was most certainly not single shot.

    how does defeat taste?

  • 10mm||

    Good job not answering. Copy/paste and bold text.

    You keep saying it's self evident that Scalia mean single shot rifles.

    Please define single shot rifle.

    Please define historic weapons used by the militia. Puckle gun was used, and was most certainly not single shot.

    how does defeat taste?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Please define historic weapons used by the militia.

    Muzzle-loading flintlock musket

    Puckle gun was used, and was most certainly not single shot.

    You're full of shit.

    how does defeat taste?

    You're making a total ass of yourself
    How does defeat FEEL ... JAMMED UP YOUR ASS?

    The main weapons of the American Revolution were the muzzleloading flintlock musket, its attached bayonet, and the cannon. Secondary weapons were the rifle and pistol, swords and other cutting weapons. By far, the most common weapon was the smoothbore flintlock musket, of a large caliber, .62 to .75 inch bore, or equal to 16 to 11 gauge shotgun

    (smirk)

    The Puckle gun was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle a British inventor, lawyer and writer. It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machine gun", being called such in a 1722 shipping manifest, though its operation does not match the modern use of the term. However, the Puckle gun was never used during any combat operation or war.

    WAY out of your league, bellowing blowhard.
    (flush)

  • 10mm||

    [still not sure why I'm feeding the troll.]

    I asked for historic weapons (plural), yet you magically restrain us to only the musket. From there you draw a line to an imaginary modern single shot rifle which you still refuse to define, because you can't.

    I also didn't say that the puckle was used during war... or does the Constitution, ratified in 1787 define milita as only the weapons used, in war, and only during the revolutionary war 5 years prior? And only muskets but not rifles or pistols? I must have missed that...

    Now, please enlighten us with this imaginary rifle we should be limited to today. I am curious, do you mean bolt action? How about internal storage? Shotguns? How about double barreled shotguns.

    Come on firearms genius, lecture us how we can defend ourselves according to SCOTUS...

  • Michael Hihn||

    I also didn't say that the puckle was used during war...

    ***** YOU'RE **** A ***** FUCKING **** LIAR

    Please define historic weapons used by the militia. Puckle gun was used, and was most certainly not single shot.

    *****WHAT ***** A ***** PATHETIC ***** PIECE ***** OF ***** SHIT ***

    Your time has expired

  • 10mm||

    wow, troll can't read.

    you copied my statement: "Please define historic weapons used by the militia. Puckle gun was used, and was most certainly not single shot."

    Yet i still don't see the phrase "during war"... hmmm

    retard much?

  • Michael Hihn||

    MORE PSYCHO BULLSHIT by 10mm

    Five comments of questions on Scalia's rukling ... weapons AT RATIFICATUION

    You keep saying it's self evident that Scalia mean single shot rifles.

    Please define single shot rifle.

    Please define historic weapons used by the militia. Puckle gun was used, and was most certainly not single shot.

    But not as BAT-SHIT CRAZY as your HYSTERIA thst gun control would mean TWO-THIRDS OF ALL AMERICANS would be shot

    "The argument that we'd be safer if only we gave in to authoritarianism may have statistical components, but it ultimately rests on a foundation of qualitative questions like whether we prefer freedom to security."

    Hah, statistically if we gave into authoritarianism, we'd have 100's of millions of deaths as was seen in the 20th century; you don't even need the qualitative argument!

    That's a lot of guns under an "authoritarian" system! (snort)

    Why do guntards foam at the mouth with as much induced hysteria as progtards?

  • Michael Hihn||

    MORE PSYCHO BULLSHIT by 10mm

    Five comments of questions on Scalia's rukling ... weapons AT RATIFICATUION

    You keep saying it's self evident that Scalia mean single shot rifles.

    Please define single shot rifle.

    Please define historic weapons used by the militia. Puckle gun was used, and was most certainly not single shot.

    But not as BAT-SHIT CRAZY as your HYSTERIA thst gun control would mean TWO-THIRDS OF ALL AMERICANS would be shot

    "The argument that we'd be safer if only we gave in to authoritarianism may have statistical components, but it ultimately rests on a foundation of qualitative questions like whether we prefer freedom to security."

    Hah, statistically if we gave into authoritarianism, we'd have 100's of millions of deaths as was seen in the 20th century; you don't even need the qualitative argument!

    That's a lot of guns under an "authoritarian" system! (snort)

    Why do guntards foam at the mouth with as much induced hysteria as progtards?

  • 10mm||

    You still cannot define a single shot rifle. I'm waiting for your interpretation of what a "modern flintlock" (your words) is.

    You can't by the way, just admit the gaping hole in your argument (or head?)

    and WTF is this:
    "But not as BAT-SHIT CRAZY as your HYSTERIA thst gun control would mean TWO-THIRDS OF ALL AMERICANS would be shot"

    Seriously, is that English?

    You need to switch from Adderall to weed.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Not QUITE as bat-shit crazy as you are here

    And here

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks the 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot muskets. That's why he's Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • ||

    Second Amendment protects modern forms of arms, as Scalia said. But you know what? It doesn't matter, because the modern flintlock is the AR-15.

  • Michael Hihn||

    STRIKE THREE! .... YER OUT!

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Will there be a 4th blunder?

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano loves gun bans!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Please continue Red Rocks.

    To be so greatly stalked and hated by someone like you is an genuine honor to any decent person. A genuine highlight of my life at this point.

    "I don't feel right, ain't got enough haters . Somebody send me some, so I can aggravate them" — Plies - "Watch Dis"

    Many thanks,
    Dumbfuck Hihnsano

    xoxoxox

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Milller broken down -- for retards

    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

    1) "these men" are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by "when called for service" for the 1800s militia. Still with me?

    2) "common use at the time" .... all one sentence ... the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence. So it's "in common use" AT RATIFICATION.

    Anything else?

  • Steve-O||

    Yes.

    Isn't your point #2 exactly the argument (as you've pointed out several times so far) that Scalia "ridiculed" in Heller as "frivolous?"

    This is what I'm not understanding. You seem to be making contradictory arguments. On the one hand, you argue that the arms protected are those that were in common use at the time of ratification. On the other hand, you seem to argue that the "modern version" of the flintlock musket is protected.

    Maybe you believe that the "modern version" of the flintlock is something other than an AR-15? If so, I think that I would understand your argument (although I would still disagree with it).

  • Michael Hihn||

    Isn't your point #2 exactly the argument (as you've pointed out several times so far) that Scalia "ridiculed" in Heller as "frivolous?"

    I see your confusion, but it's your failure to read the section.

    armprotected are those that were in common use at the time of ratification. On the other hand, you seem to argue that the "modern version" of the flintlock musket is protected

    It's quitee simple. There is no contradiction Scalia explains it clearly in the same ""frivolous" part you claim to have read.

    "Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search"

    The "modern forms" of searches and printing presses ... equate to the "modern form" of a musket.

    Maybe you believe that the "modern version" of the flintlock is something other than an AR-15?

    So does Heller and Miller. You'd trying to equate a sling shot with a hunting rifle. The rulings are quite clear on that.

  • Steve-O||

    Okay. Thanks. I think I follow so far.

    So it looks like the last piece of your reasoning I don't understand is what exactly would constitute the modern version of the flintlock, and why? And why would an AR-15 not fall into that category?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    The first blunder was allowing you to post, you incomprehensible fucktatd.

    Please report all Hihn posts as spam.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (Boldface in defense of unprovoked aggression by an vicious cyber-thug)

    Guntard lauinches unprovoked verbal assuauklt .... WHINING that I'm an "incomprehensible fucktard." an MUST be silenced.

    Why? What did I do?

    I posted a SCOTUS ruling that "TRIGGERED" him .... as in-con-veeeeeeen-yent to his programmed robotic mind.

    Right-Wing Snowflakes = Left-Wing Snowflakes.
    SHOUT DOWN VIEWS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO MANDATED GROUPTHINK.

    Does he feel manly NOW?
    (sneer)

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment."

    Gun Control Propagandist Michael Hinn here being one of those "some."

  • Michael Hihn||

    BULLSHIT. (Partial)

    Page 8: "... Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search...

    Restricting it to weapons of the 1800s -- does NOT mean muskets -- it means "modern forms" of a musket.

    Now they'll' lie about THAT (muskets)

    Cont'd

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Start at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    Pages 4.- 157 The OPINIONS. are NOT the decision, but background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Then they lie about THAT!
    Cont'd

  • Michael Hihn||

    US v Miller the precedent (for dummies)

    (researcrh includes)... 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

    1) "these men" are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by "when called for service" for the 1800s militia. Still with me?

    2) "common use at the time" .... all one sentence ... the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence. So it's "in common use" AT RATIFICATION.

    Anything else?

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    MH wrote: "Restricting it to weapons of the 1800s -- does NOT mean muskets -- it means 'modern forms' of a musket."

    And today, the "modern form" of the colonial musket is the "Modern Militia Arm" known as the "AR-15" [ArmaLite Rifle, Design #15] and other, non-Colt, semi-automatic-only "Modern Militia Arms" based on the Eugene Stoner/ArmaLite Rifle ("AR") designs – whether you agree or not ... and whether you like it or not, Mikey.

    I bet you didn't even know that individual colonials – many of whom made up their local militias – were better armed than the US Army of the Revolutionary War.

    The US "Blue Coats" were generally armed with the same muzzle-loading long gun as the British "Red Coats" – the "Brown Bess" smooth-bore musket, while those militia members often were armed – with their own arms, BTW – with the Kentucky Long Rifle or the Pensylvania Rifle – both equipped with "rifled-bore" barrels – hence the name, "rifle."

    For you to constantly claim that only "1800s arms" are covered by the 2nd Amendment is equivilent to claiming that only quill pens, iron ball ink and parchment paper are covered under the 1st Amendment.

    Both claims are stupid on their faces, Mikey.

    Quod erat demonstrandum

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    "Anything else?"

    Yes.

    When are you going to provide a link to your so-called 'Heller' "quotes," `cause the actual, real 'Heller' opinion – the one penned by Justice Scalia and linked below – does NOT read as you post!

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/ 554/07-290/opinion.pdf

  • TGoodchild||

    Your legal analysis seems a bit truncated, no? Are you seriously proposing that semi-automatic rifles are not "in common use?" That citizens would enroll for "military discipline" in the course of forming a militia goes without saying.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your legal analysis seems a bit truncated, no?

    Read the rulings.

    Are you seriously proposing that semi-automatic rifles are not "in common use?"

    Not in the 1800sl.

    Your fallacy is addressed here. IN BOLDFACE

  • operagost||

    Wired communications were not in common use in the 1800s.

    Wireless communications were not in common use in the 1800s.

    Ballpoint pens, typewriters, automobiles, and aircraft weren't in common use in the 1800s.

    Sodomy, miscegenation, and pants for women weren't in common use in the 1800s.

    Idiotic trolls who repeatedly plugged up internet threads with the same fallacious citations weren't in common use in the 1800s.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Scalia LITERALLY ridiculed that "frivolous" assumption

    Page 8, Heller ruling, Scalia
    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search

    Anything else?

    Idiotic trolls who repeatedly plugged up internet threads with the same fallacious citations weren't in common use in the 1800s.

    As a libertarian, I shall ALWAYS defend your free-speech right to do so!

  • VinniUSMC||

    Scalia was ridiculing your dumbfuck argument, dumbfuck Hihn. How is it possible to be so incredibly stupid?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    "Scalia LITERALLY ridiculed that "frivolous" assumption"

    Yes, the frivolous assumption that "Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment."

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yes, the frivolous assumption that "Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment."

    STRIKE THREE. YER OUT

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    Interestingly enough, when you plug "Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment" into Google, the ONLY return is Michael Hinn's 'Reason' propaganda postings.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Juanirto is a CRAZY --- PIECE OF SHIT --- LIAR

    Interestingly enough, when you plug "Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment" into Google, the ONLY return is Michael Hinn's 'Reason' propaganda postings.

    CLICK THIS LINK YOU SICK FUCK THE RESULTS OF A GOOGLE SEARCH
    Feeling kicked in the balls yet. (sneer)

    What does it sat in the Search window?

    semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment

    Are you feeling faint yet.

    How many search results?

    About 1,050,000 results

    YOU ..... ARE ....A .... . CRUSHED ... COCKROACH ... FUCKSTICK

    YOU SAY ONLY my results. There are over a million.

    GO BACK AND LOOK FOR ANY REASON LISTINGS
    NONE .... ZERO ... ZIP ... NADA ...

    And unless your a TOTAL MORON, searcrh results are ranked by popularity -- ALL are major media sites .... so even posting your lie was stoooooooooooooooopid

    You

    are

    one

    sick

    fuck

    GET A FUCKING LIFE

  • DesigNate||

    All of those results are for "Assault Weapons" not "Semi-automatics" you retarded fuck.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    IS DesigNate a total psycho liar ... or just fucking stoooooooopid?

    What does it sat in the Search window?
    "semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment"


    All of those results are for "Assault Weapons" not "Semi-automatics" you retarded fuck.

    RETARDED FUCKWAD SAYS A SEARCH FOR "SEMI-AUTOMATICS" (THE WORDS) -- LISTED RESULTS FOR "ASSAULT WEAPONS" (THE WORDS)

    BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA

    "IS DesigNate a total psycho liar ... or just fucking stoooooooopid?"

    BOTH!

    THEY .... ARE ... ALL .... BAT-SHIT .... CRAZY ...THUGS .... LIKE .... HIM!

    Left - Right = Zero

    (SNEER)

  • Michael Hihn||

    ... United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies
    Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time"finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

    The fuckers play ping-pong. What did MILLER say?
    FOURTH TIME

    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.

    The ENTIRE paragraph is the 1800s.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    "The ENTIRE paragraph is the 1800s."

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You expect Dumbfuck Hihnsano to actually read what he cites? This is a guy who pimps handgun bans while citing a ruling that plainly states that handgun bans violate the 2nd Amendment.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (pees pants laughing)

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Goobers will say THAT means the opposite of what it says!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part:

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's not from the RULING -- which ends at Page 3.
    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's not from the RULING -- which ends at Page 3.
    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Hank Ferrous||

    Oddly enough, Mary, the fact that you are claiming the excerpt means the opposite escapes you.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "The ENTIRE paragraph is the 1800s."

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

    The paragraph I had just quoted, that you had fucked.up.
    So you change the subject.

  • Texasmotiv||

    This is his schtick, he yells a bunch makes and assertion that is wrong, then links and boldfaced a ruling that literally contradicts what he just said. It's actually getting really boring.

  • Michael Hihn||

    BEND OVER

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.(smirk)
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    Gun Control Propagandist Michael Hinn wrote:

    "1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins."
    "2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three."

    I don't know where you read that, Michael, so show us:

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    _________________
    No. 07–290
    _________________
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
    DICK ANTHONY HELLER
    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
    APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    [June 26, 2008]
    JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
    [64 total pages]
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/ federal/us/554/07-290/opinion.pdf

  • Michael Hihn||

    UNDENIABLE PROOF ....JUANITO_J_IBANEZ .... CRAZY PSYCHO LIAR

    Claims a web search shows ... ready? .... I am the ONLY person on the Intent saying semii-automatic are NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment.

    Yes, you MUST see it to believe anything so TOTALLY FUCKING INSANE

    At this link (uppage) he says

    Interestingly enough, when you plug "Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment" into Google, the ONLY return is Michael Hinn's 'Reason' propaganda postings.

    You INSTANTLY know that's BAT-SHIT CRAZY ...but HOW crazy?

    Click THIS link for the RESULTS of that Google search

    Confiim the search window says "Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment." CHECK.

    HOW MANY RESULTS? ... OVER ONE MILLION ,... IS THAT PSYCHO OR WHAT?

    None of them (of course) are reason.com, because MAJOR media ranks highest in a broad search

    IS THAT tPSYCHO OR WHAT?

  • Michael Hihn||

    (My tone and boldface in defense of ANOTHER craz assault)

    MORE crazy by Juanito_J_Ibanez!

    Pastes lrom Page One of Heller ruling ... top 1/4 of page
    Pastes my description of what to look for, then says ...

    I don't know where you read that, Michael, so show us:

    WTF?
    There's NOTHING to show ... and nowhere to show it ... because NONE of it is at the top of page one!

    Not TOTAL wacko like his Google Search INSANITY, but ....

  • Hank Ferrous||

    I know, he's a dull troll. But I couldn't resist.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    The Gun Control Propagandist claiming to be Libertarian Michael Hihn wrote:

    "As a libertarian, I shall ALWAYS defend your free-speech right to do so!"

    Apparently you are a false Libertarian, Mikey; for the Libertarian Party Platform on the 2nd Amendment reads:

    Second Amendment recognizes an individual right

    We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.

    [Continued]

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    [Continuing]

    Repeal all gun control laws and regulation of weapons

    We affirm the right to keep and bear arms and oppose all laws restricting the ownership, manufacture, or sale of firearms. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws and we demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns and semi-automatic weapons.

    Gun Ownership

    Libertarians believe that every person has the right to arm themselves in self-defense.

    The right to self defense is one of our most fundamental rights. Few people will argue against that. However, some believe that people should not be allowed to arm themselves. Libertarians strongly disagree.

    Imagine a small person, walking home after a late shift at work. Imagine that person is attacked by someone twice their size. The victim fights back but is unable to defend themselves against the much larger attacker.

    Now imagine if the victim was armed. With the help of a gun, the victim has a chance at self defense against the much larger attacker.

    [Continued]

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    [Continuing]

    Gun rights are important for everyone, but especially those that are physically weaker.

    Banning guns would not curb violence or deaths…it will just change the nature of violence and deaths. It would result in violent criminals having more power to perpetrate violence against innocent people. Violent criminals will be emboldened if they know that average Americans are unable to defend themselves.

    And banning guns would mean people who should be free to go about their business, for example traveling home from work after dark, will live in greater fear. It will mean that people who live in more dangerous areas (and who are typically poorer) have fewer options to defend themselves and their families.

    Libertarians support people's rights to defend themselves and to arm themselves. We see it as immoral for government to try to prevent someone from doing so.

    [Continued]

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    [Continuing]

    Now; from a true Libertarian, who does not hide behind a phony nym, comes:

    A Libertarian's Perspective on Gun Control
    https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ libertarians-perspective-gun-control/

    Quod erat demonstrandum

  • Michael Hihn||

    JUANITO IS PUNISHING ME FOR PROVING HIM A TOTAL PSYCHO LIAR

    THIS NEW AGGRESSION IS "MERELY" BAT-SHIT STOOOOOOPID! (SNEER)

    "As a libertarian, I shall ALWAYS defend your free-speech right to do so!"

    Apparently you are a false Libertarian, Mikey; for the Libertarian Party Platform on the 2nd Amendment read

    LYING FUCKWIT CHANGES my "libertarian" to "Libertarian." .... POSTS HIS LIE FOR ALL TO SEE.

    (OR ... IS HE TOO STOOPID TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "small-l libertarian" and "Large-L Libertarian?")

    DIPSHIT PASTES 100s OF WORDS ,... ALL AS USELESS (to this) AS HE IS! OMFG.

    ***ONLY * LARGE-L * LIBERTARIANS * ARE .* "PARTY * LIBERTARIANS" * CONSERVATARD (sneer)

    What I said.....

    "As a libertarian, I shall ALWAYS defend your free-speech right to do so!"

    Does FUCKHEAD "think" ONLY Party Libertarians defend free speech?
    Or is THIS bullshit also?

    Like the asshat's PROVEN BULLSHIT -- caught RED-HANDED in an INSANE lie

    He claimed a google search shows ME as the ONLY person saying semi-automatics are not protected by 2A ....but I added a link showing OVER A MILLION results for the search ... PROVING him a TOTAL psychopath.

    love and kisses
    -Mikey

    Authoritarian Right = Authoritarian Left
    Both on "a HOLY mission from God"

    Keep bellowing ...

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperate wants those gun bans!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    DIPSHIT PASTES 100s OF WORDS ,... ALL AS USELESS (to this) AS HE IS! OMFG.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano projecting like a 24-screen movie theater again.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks the 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot rifles.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    I don't know what you are reading, Michael, but in the published opinion by Justice Scalia, the word "limit" does not appear until Page 3, and there it reads:

    "The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, 'Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed'."
    –Ibid.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (boldface in defense of ... WTF?)

    I don't know what you are reading, Michael,

    I SAY Page One, Paragraphs "1(f) and "2"

    but in the published opinion by Justice Scalia, the word "limit" does not appear until Page 3

    Page One, Paragraphs "1(f) and "2"

    Is this how you FAILED to see OVER ONE MILLION GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS that you say do not exist?

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    MH wrote: "Is this how you FAILED to see OVER ONE MILLION GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS that you say do not exist?"

    Google is unnecessary, Mikey:

    1) I didn't say it "does not exist," Mikey; I asked for a link to the one you are "quoting;" and,
    2) I provided you a link to the ACTUAL, FULL 'Heller' Opinion:

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/ 554/07-290/opinion.pdf

    Now, Mikey; read it and try to use its ACTUAL language in your attempt at gun control propaganda.

  • Michael Hihn||

    MORE FUCKHEAD LIES .... WATCH THE CON

    MH wrote: "Is this how you FAILED to see OVER ONE MILLION GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS that you say do not exist?"

    1) I didn't say it "does not exist," Mikey; I asked for a link to the one you are "quoting;"

    The quote marks are the bullshit. Slime says "didn't use those exact words"
    What words DID he use? (lol))

    Interestingly enough, when you plug "Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment" into Google, the ONLY return is Michael Hinn's 'Reason' propaganda postings.

    Did FUCKHEAD say the "ONLY return" (in caps) is me?
    Does that means NO OTHERS "exist?"
    Is he TOTALLY fucked up?

    CLICK THIS LINK for search RESULTS.
    Check the search window to confirm the search phrase
    See the NUMBER of returns, NONE to reason.com at all, let alone me here.

    Cyber-bullies are often psychopaths like Juanito. Psychopaths (by definition) have no conscience ... incapable of guilt or shame. HE LITERALLY DOESN'T CARE THAT HE'S A PROVEN PSYCHO LIAR ... he's here ONLY to attack ... DRIVEN by hatred.

    One

    Sick

    Fuck

    Love and kisses,
    -Mikey

  • Michael Hihn||

    (boldface in defense of ... WTF?)

    I don't know what you are reading, Michael,

    I SAY Page One, Paragraphs "1(f) and "2"

    but in the published opinion by Justice Scalia, the word "limit" does not appear until Page 3

    Page One, Paragraphs "1(f) and "2"

    Is this how you FAILED to see OVER ONE MILLION GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS that you say do not exist?

  • BambiB||

    Direct from the Miller decision:

    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.

    Note that the test laid out by the Court is whether the weapons is, "...part of the ordinary military equipment..." - or - "...that its use could contribute to the common defense".

    Consequently, under Miller M-16s would be protected if it could be shown they were part of "ordinary military equipment".

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks the 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot rifles.

    The musket was the most prevalent rifle at the time.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    MH wrote: "The musket was the most prevalent rifle at the time."

    'U.S. v. Miller' was heard in 1939, Mikey, and at THAT time the three most prevalent rifles of the U.S. military – including the Army National Guard – were the M1903 Springfield, the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle and the M1 Garand (adopted in 1936): none of which are "muskets."

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks the 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot rifles even though Scalia said otherwise. That's why he's a Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    Exactly, US v Miller held the people had a specific right to keep and bear arms suitable for military service.
    What anti-gunners are trying to ban is exactly what the Second Amendment was most aimed at for securing, and are certainly in common use.

  • Michael Hihn||

    US v Miller held the people had a specific right to keep and bear arms suitable for military service.

    EXPLICITLY the opposite. And I put it in BOLDFACE.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yeah, like if you put a lie in BOLDFACE it becomes more persuasive.

    You know, we can read these rulings ourselves, so lying about what they say doesn't actually work. Though at this point I think you're not so much lying as mentally deranged.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yeah, like if you put a lie in BOLDFACE it becomes more persuasive

    That only a FOOL could miss it!

    Can you see me NOW?

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    The whole point of US v Miller opinion was the NFA was constitutional only because it involved weapons not in evidence as suited to militia use at the time of the offense. (Never mind Miller was deceased and his lawyers weren't even there for SCOTUS to hear, so there was no one there to argue that all of them were in fact used in WWI.)

  • Michael Hihn||

    HOW CRAZY ARE THEY?

    Never mind Miller was deceased and his lawyers weren't even there for SCOTUS to hear

    HELLER IS NO LONGER BINDING BECAUSE ... SCALIA DIED!

    Who knew?

  • Horatio Cornblower||

    Miller was the defendant, not one of the justices. It's surprising that someone as learned on firearm precedent as yourself could make such a comment.

    Color me shocked.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    So ...

    Brown v. Board is no longer binding as Thurgood Marshall is dead?

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    MH wrote: "And I put it in BOLDFACE."

    Which is why it's known as a "BOLDFACE(d) Lie," Mikey.

    Ya walked right into that one, Mikey. :-)

  • IceTrey||

    Semis ARE in common use at this time. Are you saying the 2nd only protects muskets?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Semis ARE in common use at this time.

    Not in the 1800s.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks the 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot rifles.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks the 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot rifles.

    Scalia EXPLICITLY defended a ban on M-16s.

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Goobers will say THAT means the opposite of what it says!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part:

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Thanks for confirming that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    "Scalia EXPLICITLY defended a ban on M-16s."

    How could he "EXPLICITLY defended a ban on M-16s" when there IS NO "ban on M-16s"???

    As a former ATF Class II, Title 2 Special Occupational Tax-paying National Firearms Act Manufacturer Licensee building 'selective-fire' (semi- and fully-automatic) "M16s" for individual police officers and Class 3 Dealers, I can attest that NONE of the ones I manufactured have been "banned."

    Moreover, both Colt and FNUSA are still cranking out M16s and their carbine variant M4s as we speak.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    MH wrote: "Scalia EXPLICITLY defended a ban on M-16s (SIC)."

    Explain EXACTLY how a Supreme Court Justice could "defend a ban" that does NOT exist, Mikey!

    There is no "ban on M16s"!

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    MH responded to IceTrey's comment: "Semis ARE in common use at this time" with "Not in the 1800s."

    Then explain the 20-round semi-automatic Girandoni rifle – created in 1779 – carried by Captain Meriwether Lewis on the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804-1806).

  • Steve-O||

    I'm confused. If Miller states that 2A covers arms that are in common use, wouldn't that include "assault weapons?" With 16 million of them in circulation, I think it's pretty safe to say they're in common use.

    If anything, the Miller excerpt you cite suggests that 2A covers automatic weapons as well, since these are in common use by the military.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If anything, the Miller excerpt you cite suggests that 2A covers automatic weapons as well, since these are in common use by the military.

    Ready?

    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

    1) "these men" are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by "when called for service" for the 1800s militia. Still with me?

    2) "common use at the time" .... all one sentence ... the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence. So it's "in common use" AT RATIFICATION.

    Anything else?

  • BambiB||

    The test laid out by the Miller Court would have protected machineguns. The problem is, the case was never completed.

  • Jordan||

    Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment
    Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time"

    Your second point conflicts with your first, considering that semi-automatics are by far the most popular weapons in existence.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Only if you're confused by "at the time" -- which requires INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting the ruling.

    Again:

    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

    At the time of Ratification, which is what he cites (in GREAT detail, as I stated), and the ENTIRE context.
    .
    Anything else?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

  • Michael Hihn||

    More mind games. (yawn)

    "bearable arms"

    And Miller makes you a TOTAL fool

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • TGoodchild||

    You seem to conveniently forcing a nonsensical anachronism. Why would "at the time" perpetually refer to "then?"

    Keep trying.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You seem to conveniently forcing a nonsensical anachronism. Why would "at the time" perpetually refer to "then?"

    Addressed here, in BOLDFACE
    (You pulled words out of a paragraph which CLEARLY deals with ONLY the 18th century)

    Anything else.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Fuck off slaver.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (pees pants laughing)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    (pees pants laughing)

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his lack of bladder control while pimping gun bans.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    "At the time of Ratification, which is what he cites"

    Lies.

  • Michael Hihn||

  • Michael Hihn||

    Miller -- broken down for retards (like Chippah)

    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

    1) "these men" are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by "when called for service" for the 1800s militia. Still with me?

    2) "common use at the time" .... all one sentence ... the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence. So it's "in common use" AT RATIFICATION.

    Anything else?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Miller -- broken down for retards (like Chippah)

    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

    1) "these men" are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by "when called for service" for the 1800s militia. Still with me?

    2) "common use at the time" .... all one sentence ... the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence. So it's "in common use" AT RATIFICATION.

    Anything else?

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    Gun Control Propagandist Michael Hinn wrote: "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..."

    [continuing] ...they are 'called forth' to serve."

    Moreover, when Justice McReynolds wrote that he had to have ignored the 1916 federal statute defining "who are the militia;" to-wit:

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than forty-five years of age who are, or who have or shall have declared their intention to become, citizens of the United States.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—

    (1) the National Guard, the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not commissioned officers of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    [Above represents the statute as it existed in 1934]

    So, Michael; can you quote a court decision which says the 2nd Amendment does NOT apply to those members of "the unorganized militia"?

    [Continuing]

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    [Continued]

    "2) 'common use at the time' .... all one sentence ... the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence. So it's 'in common use' AT RATIFICATION."

    Can you supply a court decision that SPECIFICALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY supports that assertion. Michael?

  • TxJack 112||

    Seriously? You are going to argue that the Founders only meant for us to have the right to possess flintlock rifles, period? You talk about Mason, who as you correctly state, was an anti Federalist. He insisted on a bill of rights to protect us from the excesses of government. Mason made his view very clear - " We did not just fight a war of revolution to trade one tyrant for another. The only way for a standing army to rule is to first disarm the people..." In Federalist #29, Hamilton, who opposed a Bill of rights as unnecessary concedes - " The only protection of the people from the excesses of government is the right to keep and bear arms.". That makes the point pretty clear. Do you think flintlock rifles against modern weapons would provide the people the protection against government excess sought by Mason and others?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Seriously? You are going to argue that the Founders only meant for us to have the right to possess flintlock rifles, period?

    That's too fucking stupid to answer.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Michael Hihn: "Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment."

  • Michael Hihn||

    NOW THE CRAZY CHIPPAH SAYS .... WAIT FOR IT .....
    THERE ARE ONLY FLINTLOCKS AND SEMI-AUTOMATICS .... TODAY!

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    I didn't say anything except for quoting your moronic lunacy, a statement which even you show Scalia scoffed at.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I said flintlocks were stupid ... which YOU now take credit for MY word/

    In response to my stupid flintlocks, you cited me on semi-automatics.

    (sneer)

  • TxJack 112||

    Seriously? You are going to argue that the Founders only meant for us to have the right to possess flintlock rifles, period? You talk about Mason, who as you correctly state, was an anti Federalist. He insisted on a bill of rights to protect us from the excesses of government. Mason made his view very clear - " We did not just fight a war of revolution to trade one tyrant for another. The only way for a standing army to rule is to first disarm the people..." In Federalist #29, Hamilton, who opposed a Bill of rights as unnecessary concedes - " The only protection of the people from the excesses of government is the right to keep and bear arms.". That makes the point pretty clear. Do you think flintlock rifles against modern weapons would provide the people the protection against government excess sought by Mason and others?

  • Michael Hihn||

    You are going to argue that the Founders only meant for us to have the right to possess flintlock rifles, period?

    Uh, no,

    HOW to read SCOTUS rulings.
    Page 1

    2/3 down, "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    Scroll to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. Background, reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's also the fact that the Second Amendment is explicitly about keeping citizens armed so they can form a militia in response to the standing army of a future dictator.

    In that light, the argument that AR-15s are protected by the Second Amendment under "common use" by the military may be stronger than the argument that .38 revolvers are protected.

  • Michael Hihn||

    EXPLICITLY? Where?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia . . . . Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped.

    . . . .

    If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''

    ----Federalist No. 29

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    ----Second Amdendment

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you not know what explicit means? It's not in the Federalist either -- which is NOT relevant to the Constitution. George Mason, whose views prevailed for the Bill of Rights was an anti-Federalist.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're being unreasonable.

    ex·plic·it
    ikˈsplisit/
    adjective
    adjective: explicit

    1.stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

    Federalist No. 29 spells out exactly why we need a Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment uses the exact same language and logic.

    Having average people proficient in the use of their arms so that they can hold their own against the standing army of a future dictator is why we need the Second Amendment, and letting people keep and bear arms is the way to make sure they can use and become proficient in the use of their own weapons.

    Say you want to repeal the Second Amendment, but you have to twist the meaning of the text to create confusion and make it say something other than what it says. Its meaning is explicit.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Having average people proficient in the use of their arms so that they can hold their own against the standing army of a future dictator is why we need the Second Amendment

    You FAIL to justify your falsehood that the Second Amendment says that EXPLICITLY.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "being necessary to the security of a free State"

    What's the other meaning of that statement?

  • Michael Hihn||

    In defense of the United States. As Miller describes in detail -- the militia was INTENDED to replace a standing army.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Second Amendment prohibits any infringement of the People's right to keep and bear Arms.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The Second Amendment prohibits any infringement of the People's right to keep and bear Arms.

    Of course, Your confusion comes from not knowing what arms are protected. Scalia was quite specific on that.

    Heller Ruling Page One, Paragraph 2(f)
    ... United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies
    ... Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part:

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

  • Michael Hihn||

    Milller --- broken down for retards

    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

    1) "these men" are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by "when called for service" for the 1800s militia. Still with me?

    2) "common use at the time" .... all one sentence ... the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence. So it's "in common use" AT RATIFICATION.

    Anything else?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Milller --- broken down for retards

    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

    1) "these men" are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by "when called for service" for the 1800s militia. Still with me?

    2) "common use at the time" .... all one sentence ... the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence. So it's "in common use" AT RATIFICATION.

    Anything else?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to unwittingly confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia, continues claiming that the 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot rifles. Because he's a Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Ken Shultz||

    As Federalist No. 29 states, the Second Amendment is a safeguard against a standing army should one come into existence.

    I've already quoted that.

    You're being willfully unreasonable.

  • NYC2AZ||

    Ken Shultz|5.14.18 @ 9:43AM|#

    You're being unreasonable.

    He knows. Whenever something doesn't fit with his asinine assertions, he just needs moar boldface, CAPITALZZZZ, ad homs and (snorts).

  • Michael Hihn||

    NYC2AZ's is also proven a bullshitter below.

    BOLDFACE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR AGGRESSSION.
    You want to be a bully ... AND dictate how your victim responds!!! Fuck Off, thug.

  • NYC2AZ||

    "NYC2AZ's is also proven a bullshitter below.

    BOLDFACE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR AGGRESSSION.
    You want to be a bully ... AND dictate how your victim responds!!! Fuck Off, thug."

    Oh, I forgot to inculde useless links and a healthy dose of psychological projection.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Oh, I forgot to inculde useless links and a healthy dose of psychological projection..

    The link that PROVES you full of shit is "useless" (lol)

  • NYC2AZ||

    "The link that PROVES you full of shit is "useless" (lol)"

    Ad homs and (simulated sounds) were already addressed.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're being willfully unreasonable.

    I challenged your BULLSHIT

    There's also the fact that the Second Amendment is explicitly about keeping citizens armed so they can form a militia in response to the standing army of a future dictator.

    You have danced all around that lie

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    "The importance of this article [the 2nd Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any person. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation of and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
    –Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"

    "The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to 'raise and support'. Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government."
    –Second Amendment scholar Daniel J. Schultz

  • mpercy||

    Selective editing on Hihn's part:

    "United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    [AR-15s are currently in common use for lawful purposes, and in fact are at least minimally suitable for militia needs.]

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Selective editing on Hihn's part:

    NOTHING you added changes ANYTHING.

    Your CONFUSION -- or REFUSAL TO ACCEPT is what a BEARABLE arm is,

  • mpercy||

    At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment … indicate[s]: 'wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.' " Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

  • mpercy||

    At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment … indicate[s]: 'wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.' " Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

  • mpercy||

    From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. ... It is clear from those formulations that "bear arms" did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. ...That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

    The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war." See Linguists' Brief 18; post, at 11 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition "against," which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. ... Without the preposition, "bear arms" normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what Justice Ginsburg's opinion in Muscarello said.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's not a ruling. You're making a fool of yourself.

  • mpercy||

    That's Heller.

    I indicated some omission of supporting details as indicate with ellipses.

    Full text will follow as it is too long for a single post.

  • mpercy||

    Indeed, it's Heller. See Pages 10-12 in the PDF version of the PDF you linked to earlier.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Pages 10-12 are NOT the RULING.
    You wasted a LOT of time!

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's Heller.IT'S OPINIONS, which are NO the ruling.
    That's also your MASSIVE fuckup in citing a DISSENTING opinions

    THE RULING IS PAGES 1-3, YOU;RE MAKING A TOTAL FOOL OF YOURSELF.
  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    "THE RULING IS PAGES 1-3, YOU;RE [sic] MAKING A TOTAL FOOL OF YOURSELF.''

    Post the link to your "source," Michael -- I previously posted my source that contradicts your so-called "source."

  • mpercy||

    From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" or "bear arms in defense of himself and the state." [Footnote 8] It is clear from those formulations that "bear arms" did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution's arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense "of one's person or house"—what he called the law of "self preservation." 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) ("Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution"); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution).

  • mpercy||

    That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.[Footnote 9] These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

    The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war." See Linguists' Brief 18; post, at 11 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition "against," which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country … .") Every example given by petitioners' amici for the idiomatic meaning of "bear arms" from the founding period either includes the preposition "against" or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists' Brief 18–23. Without the preposition, "bear arms" normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what Justice Ginsburg's opinion in Muscarello said.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and reseacrh, including dissenting ans concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (In both Heller and Miller, MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • mpercy||

    "does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

    The militia is the common citizenry, or at least as defined under US Code or States' Codes, who might be called to service in the militia. The militia weapons are thus those that the common citizenry would be able to bring to the fight--"i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes"--just as this says in, you know, the part right after your full stop.

    If Miller holds that the "limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes" then certainly weapons owned by millions of citizens for lawful purposes, and especially those that are--by design--the "civilian versions" of military weapons must be covered by Miller, no? And of course, the use of these is not limited to militia purposes.

    So AR-15s are probably the MOST protected by Miller.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ONE MORE TIME.

    YOU ARE CONFUSING THE RULING/DECISION, PAGES 1-3

    WITH THE OPINIONS ... PAGES 4-157 ... LOOK AT THE TOPS OF THE FUCKING PAGES

    YOU EVEN CITED A DISSENTING OPINION!!! (Stevens) YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A DISSENTING OPINION IS EITHER!..

    YOU'RE STUMBLING AROUND IN THE DARK

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Milller --- broken down for retards

    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

    1) "these men" are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by "when called for service" for the 1800s militia. Still with me?

    2) "common use at the time" .... all one sentence ... the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence. So it's "in common use" AT RATIFICATION.

    Anything else?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Milller --- broken down for retards

    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

    1) "these men" are the citizens militia at ratification Also confirmed (if needed) by "when called for service" for the 1800s militia. Still with me?

    2) "common use at the time" .... all one sentence ... the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence. So it's "in common use" AT RATIFICATION.

    Anything else?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    Noting Gun Control Propagandist Michael Hinn's frustration that his propaganda isn't "sticking" when he wrote: "One mote [SIC] time: from the DECISION"

    We are still awaiting the link to that "DECISION," Michael, as it does NOT agree with the one I posted earlier.

  • mpercy||

    Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . ."

    ...the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's 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. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

  • Michael Hihn||

    YOU PROVED YOURSELF WRONG!!!! The problem is ... you see what you WANT so see.

    It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

    It may be true that the LIMIT ON WEAPONS may not serve a military purpose today .... BUT

    But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    STILL CONFUSED?

    The "prefatory clause" is the militia clause.
    Modern developments have limited fit of the protected right (TO THE TYPE OF WEAPONS AT RATIFICATION) ... but .... HELLO? ... THAT CANNOT CHANGE OUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT RIGHT.

    Modern developments CANNOT CHANGE THE RIGHT.
    .

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    STILL CONFUSED?

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is always confused. That's why he thinks the most libertarian act in the world is banning firearms.

  • mpercy||

    The "prefatory clause" is the militia clause.

    Indeed. And it is somewhat ironic that you are arguing that point in an attempt to uphold an ban on "assault weapons" since AR-15s and similar weapons--commonly held to be "civilian versions" of weapons of war--are in fact the most suitable arms to be kept as a potential militia service weapon.

    Heller's "interpretation of the right" is that there is an individual right, not bound to militia service, to keep and bear arms which are in common use. "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."

    "Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,[Footnote 27] banning from the home "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family," 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Goobers will say THAT means the opposite of what it says!

  • Texasmotiv||

    YOU are saying the opposite of what thay says.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're wearing a green hat,

  • mpercy||

    "But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

    In context, this sentence says something like "Even though a militia comprising small arms might be silly in the face of tanks and bombers, the individual right to own and carry those commonly used weapons still holds."

  • mpercy||

    Silly me, I've forgotten the old admonition: "Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They have to park those planes and tanks somewhere.

    They have to build new planes and tanks somewhere.

    They have to repair planes and tanks somewhere.

    Dedicated and determined irregulars can absolutely prevent a massive military force from conquering them. There are numerous examples throughout history and Afghanistan is a great example, having fought the British, Russians, and Americans.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (pees pants laughing)

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Goobers will say THAT means the opposite of what it says!

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Are you advocating mandatory service in well-regulated state militias either as a counter-balance to federal power, or as an element of national defense? Or are you just using the militia clause as a bad faith excuse to ignore the rest of the Second Amendment?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Are you advocating mandatory service in well-regulated state militias either as a counter-balance to federal power, or as an element of national defense? Or are you just using the militia clause as a bad faith excuse to ignore the rest of the Second Amendment?

    Scalia's dead.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    In other words, you tacitly admit that all your blather about the militia clause is, in fact, just bad faith argument?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Scalia's dead.

    In other words, you tacitly admit that all your blather about the militia clause is, in fact, just bad faith argument?

    I said you were full of shit.
    This link is ALL the search results reporting his death, Feb 13, 2016

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    In other words, you tacitly admit that all your blather about the militia clause is, in fact, just bad faith argument?

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Michael Hihn|5.14.18 @ 3:09PM|#
    Full stop

    PLEASE!

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Michael Hihn|5.14.18 @ 3:09PM|#
    Full stop

    PLEASE!

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Michael Hihn|5.14.18 @ 3:09PM|#
    Full stop

    PLEASE!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part:

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

  • Michael Hihn||

    I posted it first. And you lie about what a "bearable arm" is. So I'll teach you

    Heller, Page 55
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—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 Amendment's 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. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Goobers will say THAT means the opposite of what it says!

  • mpercy||

    So please enlighten us.

    Could you please provide a clear definition of "bearable arms"?

    Honestly, I've no idea what it is that you think this phrase means but it seems clear that you think a) it means SOMETHING, and b) that SOMETHING is not at all what I think it means.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hinsano confirms that M-16s and their civilian derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons due to their use by the National Guard, which is part of the militia.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part:

    THAT IS NOT THE DECISION/RULING -- (PAGES 1-3) ..... IT'S FROM THE OPINION (4-157) READ THE TOP OF EACH PAGE
    DO YOU SERIOUSLY NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE????

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks only the parts he quotes matter. That's why he's a Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    "The "prefatory clause" is the militia clause."

    ...and the OPERATIVE clause is "the Right of the People to Keep and Near Arms Shall NOT Be Infringed." [EMPHASIS added]

    "The Amendment's prefatory clause ['A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,'] announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause ['the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'].
    –District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia—Majority Opinion

  • ace_m82||

    Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment.

    Courts lie. Korematsu is settled law. So is Wickard v Filburn. So was Dred Scott, and Plessy v Ferguson.

    Let's look at the real reason Hihn wants to take your guns away:

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/01/17.....nt_7100385

    "Don't like it? EMIGRATE."

    "See .. government DEFENDS rights."

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853

    As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

    So, tell us again, Hihn, how those Jews in Auschwitz were "free to leave"? Those walls with the barbed wire and the guards with the machine guns, those were to prevent others from attacking those Jews, huh?

    Hihn legitimately thinks "rights" are subject to the will of the majority (or plurality). He also thinks the Nazis were within their "rights" to kill the Jews, as they were elected!

    Cont'd

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn also knows that defensive firearm uses are over 2 million per year according to the CDC's own studies:

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/04/20.....t-plenty-o

    So, the only answer is that Hihn doesn't care about violent crime, only about governmental power. Now why would that be?

    The only rational answer I can give you is this:

    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud

    There were 262 million murders of UNARMED people by governments in the 20th century.

    You see, he has to disarm us in order to kill us. He worships the State, and the elections by a small minority (the plurality that votes for the winner, out of the minority that vote). And nothing, NOTHING is allowed to stand in its way. Not you, not me, and certainly not the peasants who think they can own guns to defend themselves!

    He worships the State. If you don't worship the State, he wants to be able to kill you. There is nothing else that makes sense*.

    *OK, asking Hihn to make sense is quite ridiculous, I know. But, if he is anything other than insane, this must be his plan. So, he's either insane, or attempting mass murder. You choose.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One mote time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • ace_m82||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.

    Follow me here: I. Don't. Care. The Supreme Court made up their authority to define the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison. Their authority isn't in the Constitution, they just made it up. It's "settled law" that growing wheat on your own land for your own consumption is a Federal issue, and that Interning the Japanese is totally fine if Congress is scared enough. There is no logical consistency here, only power mad slavers.

    Now, I don't know why any SANE person would reply to my charge, that you're obviously only trying to take arms away from us so you can use your beloved government to KILL all the people you don't like (just like your beloved Nazis did, and you continually defend them).

    So, you're either nuts, or you're just trying to obfuscate through red herrings.

    So, Hihn, are you insane or are you evil and trying to kill us? Pick one.

    Regardless of your massive issues:

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    Huh, 2nd paragraph first sentence is only a fragment. I meant to end it with ", in this manner." My bad.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That babbling has nothing to do with the law of the land -- except that you disagree with it. (yawn)

    Who defends our fundamental rights from abuse by the Executive and/or Legislative Branches?

    And when will you learn that Congress could have overruled Marbury v Madison?
    See, the Checks and Balances work in both directions!

  • ace_m82||

    That babbling has nothing to do with the law of the land

    "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

    ^Law of the land.

    Who defends our fundamental rights from abuse by the Executive and/or Legislative Branches?

    The 2nd amendment.

    And when will you learn that Congress could have overruled Marbury v Madison?

    Don't care. See "Law of the land".

    Anyhow, are you going to answer the charges? You are obviously nuts or are trying to disarm us in order to kill people you don't like.

    Fact:
    There were 262 million murders of UNARMED people by governments in the 20th century.

    Fact:
    Defensive firearm uses are over 2 million per year according to the CDC's own studies.

    Fact:
    Hihn thinks As the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    What part of what I've said is incorrect?

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    "And when will you learn that Congress could have overruled Marbury v Madison?"

    Who says they could have, Michael?

    Obamacare and the Fatal Flaw in Marbury v. Madison
    https://www.the-american-interest.com/ 2012/07/03/ obamacare-and-the-fatal-flaw-in-marbury-v-madison/

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Necron 99||

    I'd really like to meet you in person. What are the visiting hours and do I have to sign in at the front desk?

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'd really like to meet you in person. What are the visiting hours and do I have to sign in at the front desk?

    YOU LOSE!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Way to fuck up the link to your gibberish, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Michael Hihn||

    THANKS FOR ALERTING ME!!

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Start at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. are NOT the decision, but background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Necron 99||

    I knew going in wanting to meet you is a lose/lose proposition. On one hand they may not allow visitors where you are kept. On the other hand they may actually allow visitors and I would have to come up with some excuse to back out. "Oops, um, that day won't work for me, I'm, um, washing my hair."

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach the psycho conservatard HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Start at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. are NOT the decision, but background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

  • Necron 99||

    So for AR-15s to be legal today, the opinion of the Court in the Heller ruling would have to read, "Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use in the future"...?

    LOL

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • khm001||

    "Semi-automatics are not protected by the 2nd amendment."

    Second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Semi-automatics are arms, i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear semi-autos shall not be infringed. All other arguments contradicting this are based on text NOT found in the second amendment.

  • Rossami||

    Hihn is, predictably, wrong on all counts and adamant in his refusal to admit the error despite being repeatedly shown exactly where he is wrong. I urge anyone interested in this issue to actually read the relevant decisions and to ignore Hihn's out-of-context excerpts and misrepresentations.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling. ONLY pages 1-3 matter.
    Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    "None are so blind as those who refuse to see."

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    Gun Control Propagandist Michael Hinn wrote: "I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling. ONLY pages 1-3 matter."

    And I again challenge you to post a link to your so-called "source" for those "3 pages," Michael, as they do NOT read that way here:

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/ 554/07-290/opinion.pdf

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    One problem here, Michael: the "linchpin" of all federal gun control is 'US v. Miller.'

    However, the 1939 Supreme Court hearing was, in and of itself, unconstitutional, as it was held in violation of this Court's own previous ruling in 'Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah' [4 S.Ct. 202, 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884)], wherein the Court ruled that a hearing without either the defendants or their counsel being present violated the long-standing legal principle of 'audi alteram partem' ('hear the other party').

    IOW, 'Miller' constituted 'trial in absentia' and should never have been heard in the first place.

    The whole 'Miller' proceedings were a government setup from the outset in order to establish the 'legality' and 'constitutionality' of the National Firearms Act of 1934, as was documented by Brian L. Frye, Associate, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. J.D., in 'The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller' (NYU Journal of Law & Liberty) and 'The Strange Case of United States v. Miller' by Dr. Michael S. Brown of Vancouver, WA.

  • Horatio Cornblower||

    Juanito,

    Thanks for all the material you've posted. I've learned a lot (such as the above), and saved most of what you provided for future use. Also, your calm, reasoned presentation acted as a mental poultice to the wound that is Michael Hinh.

    - H. Cornblower (Jason F.)

  • BambiB||

    Technically, Miller is still on remand to adduce additional information on the suitability of short-barreled shotguns for militia use.

    Miller makes particularly bad law because Miller was completely unrepresented and the case was never concluded. The Court appeared to lay out a test for whether a particular "arm" was protected based on its suitability for militia use, then went on to say it could not take "Judicial Notice" that short-barreled shotguns met the standard. ("Judicial Notice" is a term of art referring to a class of evidence that the Court may consider, despite it never being introduced by either side.) The Court basically had three choices: It could affirm the lower court rulings (Miller had won on summary rulings). It could reverse the case (Miller loses). Or it could reverse and remand for further proceedings - to gether the missing evidence.

    Because the question of the suitability of short-barreled shotguns for military/militia use was unresolved, the Court remanded the case and since Miller was dead, nothing else happened on the case. So we have the Supreme Court laying out a test, but never applying it - leaving the issue in limbo.

    This was all transpiring in the same atmosphere that brought us Wickard v. Filburn, arguably the worst decision ever delivered by a Court. The court-packing threat of FDR (may he burn in hell forever) almost certainly influenced Miller.

  • epsilon given||

    Yeah, tell me about it. We all know that the Second Amendment only protects military weapons; thus, it's legal to ban the AR-15. M-16s, being a standard issue gun by the military, on the other hand, are 100% protected by the Second Amendment.

    Thus, Congress should act immediately: they should ban AR-15s. Anyone who refuses to destroy their AR-15, or put a selector switch to make it fully automatic (like the M-16), is a menace to society, and deserves whatever horrendous punishment we are ready to inflict upon them (so long as said punishment isn't "cruel and unusual", to be sure).

  • Jay Dubya||

    the 7th circuit has its wires crossed

  • Longtobefree||

    "A folding stock makes a rifle shorter for transport or storage, while an adjustable stock allows a more comfortable fit for shooters of different sizes."

    So Ms Feinstein is a patriarch loving, woman hating, bigot who opposes features that would assist a woman in defending herself. Throw her out of the democrat party! I bet she has an NRA membership.

  • Dadlobby||

    Forgot to mention that nobody is going to give them up without passive and active, and maybe an armed resistance. Even in radical socialist states like NY which passed the "SAFE" act requiring registration confiscation will be impossible, as virtually nobody registered their weapons. Many (like me) have, or intend to flee the states high taxes and onerous regulations (including those on firearms) for friendly states. You might get some of NY police to try to confiscate, but in most middle America states no government (outside of a big city) will comply with the Federal mandates.

  • Cy||

    That won't stop the incremental long game being played.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's what Orval Faubus thought in 1957, when he activated his state's militia for the sole purpose of blocking nine black kids from registering at Little Rock's Central High School.

    Eisenhower sent armed troops, authorized to use force if necessary. To defend the rights of NINE KIDS,
    I have no doubt that you fantasizers with tiny dicks will die happily. Unwitting tools of gun manufacturers.

    Eisenhower was a lefty, right?

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    "Eisenhower sent armed troops, authorized to use force if necessary."

    You seem to forget that Eisenhower "federalized" the entire Arkansas Army National Guard in order to remove Faubus' control over his "state militia," Michael.

    Furthermore, President Eisenhower violated the 'Posse Comitatus Act' (18 U.S.C. § 1385) when he sent in the "standing army" (the 101st Airborne -- WITHOUT its black troopers, BTW) to enforce integration and protect the "Little Rock Nine" students.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The arbitrary nature of the guns banned by the '94 AWB was a deliberate feature, not a mistake; The goal wasn't to achieve significant gun control, and certainly not to reduce any category of crime.

    The goal was to legally establish that the federal government could ban guns, based on arbitrary criteria. This might surprise some people, but never before had the federal government asserted the power to ban guns. Even the '84 FOPA approached its goal indirectly: The NFA had required the payment of a very high tax to purchase listed firearms, attempting to discourage what they knew they had no authority forbid. The '84 act simply declared that the government would no longer accept payment of that tax, a ban that pretended to be just a tax law change.

    With the '94 AWB, for the very first time the federal government asserted that it had the power to simply, directly ban a firearm.

    It was never meant to be anything but a foot in the door. But sticking that foot through the door got their leg chewed off in the next election, so they never got the chance to lever the door open further.

    At this point, the most important thing for 2nd amendment rights is getting the Supreme court back in the business of enforcing the 2nd amendment again, which will take the replacement of one or two 'Justices'. There's a door which really needs to be slammed shut and nailed into place.

  • ||

    Like a ravenous squirrel, they will find a side window to gnaw through.

  • Michael Hihn||

    This might surprise some people, but never before had the federal government asserted the power to ban guns

    This might surprise some people but US v Miller (1939) and D.C. v Heller (2008)

  • Shirley Knott||

    It's so cute that you trot out a 2008 case as part of your attempted counter to the claim that prior to 1984 (or 1994) the federal government had not asserted the power to ban guns.

  • Michael Hihn||

    1939, sweaty, errrrr, sweetie. Check the link.

    How many times can you screw up on this page?

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    "1939, sweaty, errrrr, sweetie."

    Au contraire, Michael: 'U.S. v. Miller & Layton' did NOT "ban" a single, solitary gun.

    Prove otherwise, Mikey.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Probably a waste of time, but have you bothered reading the NFA, which Miller upheld?

    It was deliberately written as a tax law, and didn't ban anything. It simply required you to pay an outrageously high tax on certain items, and refused to let some limited categories of people pay the tax.

    It was upheld by the Supreme court on the basis that it really was a revenue measure, not a ban.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Another reason that Miller was a bad decision.

    A specific tax used as a limiting scheme on certain firearms should be struck down as an infringement of the right to keep and bear Arms. It was a tax designed to keep people from buying and owning certain Arms.

    Government could enact a sales tax or other tax that applied to all products on the market equally.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Miller was the best ruling we could have gotten at the time. It was after "the switch in time that saved 9", when the Supreme court largely stopped enforcing the Constitution in order to dissuade FDR from packing the Court.

    Because Miller was dead and unrepresented, all they had to do was rule that the 2nd amendment protected ownership of firearms suitable for military purposes, and that nobody had submitted evidence to them that a sawn off shotgun was suitable for military

    Which was, of course, true. Because only the government's side of the case was being represented.

    If, hypothetically, Miller had had representation, the Court would have likely still ruled against him, but would have had to have set much more damaging precedents in the process.

    Not that the lower courts didn't spend the next 70 years turning the ruling on its head, Hinn style. And then Scalia had to pretend they'd gotten it right, because the last thing he wanted to do was rule that 70 years of gun control was unconstitutional.

  • mad_kalak||

    Excellent points. I would add that Miller happened in a pre-Civil Rights era. Just as Chief Justice Taney noted in Dred Scott that if blacks were citizens, they could keep and bear arms, the Court in Miller was not going to issue a ruling that would do away with all the gun control laws in the South specifically designed to keep weapons out of the hands of black citizens.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    One could make the argument that the Court should have let FDR try and pack the Supreme Court.

    Either Americans would have kicked that cripple out of office, he would have been successful, or some variation.

    One thing is for sure, later presidents and their party controlled Congress could have done the same thing and shrunk the SCOTUS.

    The outcome instead was the same "ideologue justices" caving to political threats and messing up constitutional law for decades.

  • JesseAz||

    Democrats are literally advocating court packing when they next take office. I've read 3 articles from liberals on it this week.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hm. I did not know that court packing was a returning fantasy of theirs.

    Luckily, Democrats won't be winning a majority in the House, Senate, nor SCOTUS anytime soon. Trump will be re-elected, so 2024 will be their next shot.

  • mpercy||

    Heller is replete with discussion as to why Miller was a bad decision.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You get crazier by the minute. Heller CITES Miller as judicial precedent

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Scalia for dummies and guntards (same thing)

    "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

    That's the issue, which he dismisses.

    But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's 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.

    Weapons in common use in the 1800s. per Miller and his Scalia's page 1.

    It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.

    PERHAPS only more sophisticated weapons can be as EFFECTIVE. today

    Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

    The modern equivalent of a musket may be USELESS against today's bombers and tanks.

    BUT

    But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    NONE of that can change how the right is interpreted (originally in Miller)

  • mpercy||

    We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machine guns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machine guns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militia men and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're giving the justices and future government bureaucrats too much room to decide and limit the right to keep and bear Arms.

    Zero government infringement of the right to keep and bear Arms is allowed under the 2nd Amendment.

  • mpercy||

    Oh, I agree. I was simply quoting Heller, which certainly to me would tend to support that an AR-15 ban would be unconstitutional.

    It says "shall not be infringed" and dammit, that's what it should be.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You quoted from a dissenting opinion. Do you not know what that means?

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    "You quoted from a dissenting opinion."

    Which one are you "quoting," Mikey, `cause it's sure not this one:

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER
    JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
    [64 total pages]
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/ 554/07-290/opinion.pdf

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're giving the justices and future government bureaucrats too much room to decide and limit the right to keep and bear Arms.

    Zero government infringement of the right to keep and bear Arms is allowed under the 2nd Amendment.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    See. Even the squirrels agree.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.

    Miller says the exact opposite. EXPLICITLY And even WHY

    US v Miller (1939)

    The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they 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.

    Now he'll fuck up "at the time" again

  • Michael Hihn||

    Probably a waste of time,

    And stupid

    but have you bothered reading the NFA, which Miller upheld?

    You don't know how rulings work, In the process of "defining" 2A, he is also obliged to state the limits of that definition,
    Just as Scalia was obliged to do when "defining" it as an individual right, so he did.

  • mpercy||

    Re: Miller

    "As for the "hundreds of judges," post, at 2, who have relied on the view of the Second Amendment JUSTICE STEVENS claims we endorsed in Miller: If so, they overread Miller. And their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown) upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.

  • mpercy||

    This reminds me of someone...

  • Michael Hihn||

    This reminds me of someone...

    SOMEBODY ELSE confuses a RULING with a DISSENTING OPINION? At least you're not the only one who slept through high school!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Justice Stevens' was a DISSENTING OPINION!

    SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think we can start to lose the argument with the general public when we take the gun grabber's arguments too literally.

    The main reason why arguments for global warming mitigation have fallen on deaf ears is because the AGW lobby has made their argument almost entirely about science. Unfortunately for them, the question of whether the government should force us to sacrifice our standard of living for the benefit of polar bears, the developing world, and future generations isn't a scientific question. It's a question of ethics, personal preferences, etc.--things that can't be disproven through scientific observations of climate data.

    I'm afraid people's support for gun grabbing comes from the same place. We can quote all the facts we want, but ultimately we're talking about people's willingness to sell their rights short for security--apart from whether "assault weapons" is a meaningful term. There are millions of people in this country who choose not to own a firearm but still value the right to do so. Whether we stop the gun grabbers over the long run probably depends on getting through to that group of people a) that their rights are important even if they choose not to exercise them and b) that it isn't the guns the gun grabbers are really coming after--it's our rights.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Mostly its about people being willing to sell *other people's* rights.
    As Heinlein noted, nobody stands up to demand a law to prevent themselves from smoking or owning a gun.
    The core evil is the will to substitute ones agency for that of another. IOW, slavery.

  • khm001||

    "the AGW lobby has made their argument almost entirely about science"

    Since there is very little science backing the claims of the AGW lobby, the above is false.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I shall now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Look CLOSELY at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll 2, to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. The background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions, so OBVIOUSLY not the RULING. (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • ||

    They want, need, this distortion. Otherwise they'd have nothing to go on, and they can use general American's ignorance about firearms to mystify and demonize anything short of a glock.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Glocks are black and scary, too.

  • steve sturm||

    For the sake of discussion...

    Recognizing that 'assault weapons' are rifles that 'look scary' (however that's defined), if it could be proven that some number of mass shooters chose such a weapon precisely because of its appearance and would not have gone on their shooting spree if the only guns available were boring looking rifles or pistols, then would a ban of such scary looking rifles be reasonable?

    And as a standard rifle is no less effective for hunting or personal defense than a so called assault weapon, so presumably no one's rights are being infringed by not being allowed to buy a scary looking rifle.

    Just wondering...

  • Cy||

    "Recognizing that 'assault weapons' are rifles that 'look scary' (however that's defined), if it could be proven that some number of mass shooters chose such a weapon precisely because of its appearance and would not have gone on their shooting spree if the only guns available were boring looking rifles or pistols, then would a ban of such scary looking rifles be reasonable?"

    No. Someone's opinion or abuse of a right, including the right to self defense, doesn't justify the restricting or removal of ANYONE else's rights.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The weapons they mention look awesome to me.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So what happens when somebody wraps a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch in a decal so it looks like a Ruger Mini-14 Tactical?

  • Rat on a train||

  • khm001||

    "then would a ban of such scary looking rifles be reasonable?"

    No. There is no "scary looking" arms exception to what the people can keep and bear.

  • Rossami||

    Interesting hypothetical. If you actually could demonstrate a causal relationship between a weapon's looks and violent crimes, it might be reasonable as a matter of social policy to ban such weapons. However, it could also still be unconstitutional.

    It is reasonable social policy to ensure that legislative decisions are made by an informed, educated electorate. It is unconstitutional to establish a literacy test to ensure that.

    Regardless, the article above makes it clear that the likelihood of actually being able to prove any such causal relationship between looks and crime to be vanishingly close to zero. People intent on causing mayhem will find a way regardless of what obstacles you put in the way of law-abiding citizens.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Recognizing that 'assault weapons' are rifles that 'look scary'

    Which is bullshit for brainwashing guntards. And why you went totally off the rails. (Stawman Fallacy)

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    If the "weapons of war" argument was at all consistent and honest, the Left would be calling for "military style assault weapons" (not to mention genuine automatic weapons) to be taken from law enforcement agencies.

  • Cy||

    They should just use the Iraq war's deaths by firearms to justify taking them away from the military. After all, it's about saving lives right?

  • Jerryskids||

    The faulty logic of such legislation actually works to the benefit of those who support "broader gun control."

    If you get what you want by lies and deception, what's "faulty" about the logic?

    And the larger problem is that logic is being dismissed as a tool of the patriarchy, of white privilege, of cultural imperialism. If it's my opinion that the shoulder thing that goes up makes a gun more dangerous, who are you to deny me my right to my opinion? You're a fascist so you need to shut up is what that means. How dare you suggest that your precious reason and logic and facts and evidence are more dispositive of the debate than my feelings and opinions?

    We're being driven back to a pre-rational age by these "other ways of knowing" people who have the luxury of being fools thanks to the progress human beings have made under the dominance of rationality - for most of humanity for most of history, being this damn stupid would result in starvation, enslavement, or being eaten by wolves. But these people aren't stupid, they just want to change the rules of civilization and social order for their own benefit. "We must trust the witch doctor!" says the witch doctor.

  • AlgerHiss||

    This piece, along with most others, never mentions caliber when "assault rifles" are the subject: The variants of AK47 and AR15 are available in 22LR.

  • Cy||

    If we start talking about details that minute, we've already lost the war on the 2nd.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup. Refer the gun grabbers to the 2nd Amendment and that there are zero government infringements allowed.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your confusion is common, despite Scalia's attempt to clarify it for you.
    Or you lie.

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller, Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

  • Citizen X - #6||

    So we're beginning the week with a massive Hihnfection, huh. Christ.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Start at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. are NOT the decision, but background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    You don't need court cases to uphold the 2nd Amendment. You just need to demand that the limitation on government to infringe on the right to keep and bear Arms be enforced.

    No background checks. No limits on machine guns, grenades, tanks, ships, airplanes, pistols, swords, knives, and any other weapon that can be created.

  • Cy||

    There also needs to be a severe penalty ENFORCED upon any government official infringing on someone's rights.

  • sarcasmic||

    How do you enforce penalties on the people who enforce penalties?

  • SH68137||

    18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

    18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

  • SH68137||

    18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

    18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

  • loveconstitution1789||

    42 USC §1983

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm serious. And listing laws means nothing to me, especially because laws mean nothing if nobody will enforce them.

    What about requirements that police departments give information to the FBI? Few departments actually follow this law, and nothing else happens.

    Do you prosecute every member of Congress who votes for a bill that violates the 2A, or a president who signs it, or the Supreme Nazgul who say it's kosher?

    If so, who prosecutes?

    What if those who are supposed to prosecute decide they don't want to?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You sue the government in federal court. You don't need a district attorney or US attorney to prosecute violations of your civil rights. Average people can do it.

  • Cy||

    What've the penalties been to actual government officials in those cases?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Once the government loses qualified immunity, they usually settle.

  • sarcasmic||

    And when the judge laughs in your face, as they seem to do when you question the authority of the government based upon some arcane parchment, then what?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You laugh at the judge and explain how their jobs are created from that same arcane parchment, so if they are not going to abide by the the law there is no need for them.

    Then appeal the court decision. Judges hate to be reversed by higher courts and publicly shown to be the traitorous shits they tend to be.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I never understood why people are so scared of police and judges.

    Treat these bureaucrats like the authoritarian hacks that they tend to be.

  • sarcasmic||

    I never understood why people are so scared of police and judges.

    Oh I dunno. I'm scared of police because they do whatever they want, they get their way with violence, they always get their way, they lie, they file false reports, they are always believed by people who know they lie, and they never see any consequences for their actions.

    Judges have total immunity, so they totally do whatever they want. Cops are officers of the court who do the bidding of the judges.

    So yeah. I'm scared to death of these motherfuckers. Because in their world might makes right, and they have might.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As someone who stands up to police, judges, and other bureaucrats on a regular basis I can tell you they are more scared of you.

    Ever drive through a DUI checkpoint with only rolling your window down enough to hand the police a laminated card with the Constitution on it? I have.

    Ever drive through a drivers license checkpoint, never roll your window down, and holding up a laminated card of the 4th Amendment? I have.

    Ever walk out of court while the judge is lecturing you about civil law while the judge is simultaneously violating the Constitution and case law? I have.

    You might even die standing up for yourself and your rights. Freedom is not free.

  • sarcasmic||

    In how many of those cases were you subsequently arrested?

    You might even die standing up for yourself and your rights.

    Then my daughter is an orphan because her mom is a deadbeat. I can't do that.

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    Well, it ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS comes down to the question "Quis Custodiet Ipsoes Custodies", doesn't it?

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Start at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. are NOT the decision, but background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • Cy||

    I'm not saying it'd be easy or fool proof.

    I'd have an elected position similar to how we elect Federal Senators. 2 per state, let's call them Federal Sheriff's. Each may appoint 30 officers. They'd have no limit on jurisdiction and may only arrest/prosecute someone employed directly or contracted by government.

  • sarcasmic||

    That won't be abused by political parties to get revenge when the new team comes into power. No way.

  • Cy||

    They'd be elected officials only allowed to hunt government. It wouldn't be perfect, but I think it'd be better than the circle jerk we have right now.

  • mad_kalak||

    The "bear" part of the Amendment, meaning "to carry" limits the amendment's protections to small arms. I think you and I debated this before and I even linked to an interview with Scalia saying as much.

    Yes, yes, I know all the arguments about private cannons in the militia, etc. However, we should not need the Second Amendment to protect private ownership of such larger weapons of war, just as in a theoretically just world we shouldn't even need a Second Amendment to protect the right to own a gun. Besides the very price of those things will keep anybody but rich collectors from owning them, just like it is now for the NFA legal full-auto guns like you see at the Knob Creek shoot.

    But let's be true to the actual words of the amendment, for if we are going to be absolutist about things, be correct in our absolutism.

  • sarcasmic||

    What about the "keep" part? You can keep things that are bigger than can be carried. With that pesky "and" in there, it looks like it means both small arms that can be carried and large arms that can be kept.

  • mad_kalak||

    What a tortured interpretation of the English language and a normal plain text understanding of things.

    The "keep and bear" has always been read together as one clause as applied to a militia soldier carrying his own gun into service. To have your interpretation, it would have to have been written as "keep or bear."

  • sarcasmic||

    Nothing says that "and" means "at the same time."

  • sarcasmic||

    "Or" in the English language usually means exclusive. This or that, but not both. So "keep or bear" would mean you can keep things you can't carry or have things you can carry, but not both.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gun grabbers torture any constitutional language that defies their narrative that all guns should be banned.

    Background checks on weapons and ammo, limits on ships, grenades, tanks, swords, knives are all unconstitutional.

  • sarcasmic||

    Background checks on weapons and ammo, limits on ships, grenades, tanks, swords, knives are all unconstitutional.

    Yep. Even nukes. If Bill Gates wants a nuke, and is willing to put up the coin to get one, then he should be able to.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup, even nukes.

    Good luck with that. Bill Gates will surely get hundreds of thousands of people to voluntarily work to produce a nuclear weapon to "protect himself" from Americans. Yeah sure.

    BTW. I get to sue Bill Gates if his radiation enrichment facility causes radiation to cross my property and injure me.

    "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Bill Gates is building a nuclear weapon and irradiated me. I am suing for $50 Billion dollars".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Another logical conclusion of your nuke comment is chemical and biological weapons. Real nasty stuff and available in the 18th Century.

    Smallpox was used as a weapon to decimate native tribes in the Americas.

    Poison as a chemical weapon was used to kill people.

    If you hurt or murder someone using chemical and/or biological agents, you are liable for civil and/or criminal penalties.

  • mad_kalak||

    Yes, but it doesn't say "or" now does it. It says "keep and bear" in the context of a single militia soldier taking his arm to militia service. The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, but under your line of reasoning, the amendment protects both an individual right to keep and bear arms but also a collective right to crew served weapons? Pick a side, buddy.

    And I am most certainly not a gun grabber, and for what it's worth, I resent being called such just because I don't support your particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, one entirely unsupported by both a textual analysis of the amendment, but also a historical understanding of what it was actually protecting.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Kalak, you are just wrong. I know YOU WANT the 2nd Amendment to limit weapons but it does not.

    Colonialists and early Americans brought every available weapon to bear against the British: Cannons, ships, swords, rifles, pistols, grenades, explosives, etc.

  • sarcasmic||

    It says "keep and bear" in the context of a single militia soldier taking his arm to militia service.

    *scans 2A*

    Nope. Don't see person there. I see "people."

    Pick a side, buddy.

    Nope. I don't pick sides. I poke holes.

    I resent being called such just because I don't support your particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

    Reread my comments. I never said nor implied that you were.

  • mad_kalak||

    You can the 2A see and see "people"....comes to the conclusion that it protects a collective right. Only in the context (there's that word again) of the other amendments can you come to the conclusion that the 2A protects and individual right. Further, without the same understanding about context, you can also easily come to the conclusion that the 2A only protected weapons in use at the time of the founding, because the 1st Amendment only mentions press and speech specifically. Taking things your way, speech on the internet would not be protected.

    You think you're poking holes, just really you're just showing your lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

    My comment about being a "gun grabber" was to love1789. Sorry you mixed it up.

  • mpercy||

    TRTKABA is not limited to a "militia soldier", but is an individual right the people held before the advent of the BOR. "...[I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed."

    Held:
    1. 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.
    (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.

  • mad_kalak||

    I never said the amendment only protected a "militia soldier," just that "keep and bear" means that the amendment protects only arms capable of being carried, because in context the Founders wanted to protect individual ownership of arms for militia soldiers carrying their own guns to service. Love1789 and others are saying that "bear" doesn't mean "carry."

  • mad_kalak||

    Again, with the understanding that militia service is not necessary for the individual right to own a gun, but the context of militia service is essential to understanding the "bear arms" means carry.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Start at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. are NOT the decision, but background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "To keep and bear arms".

    The 2 different verbs refer to the same noun.

    So you must be able to bear them or they can't be arms.

    This is a very simple English sentence.

    Additionally, no one spoke at the time of "keeping a cannon (or a warship)" (as in "keep arms in their house").

    The Founders knew English, they revered words, and labored over what they said.

    It is an insult to them that some pretend they were so stupid that they couldn't write an amendment to protect "the sword and every terrible implement of war". They could have, but they didn't.

    That pro-rights people try to twist it in the right to bear cannon or warships is embarrassing.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So you must be able to bear them or they can't be arms.
    This is a very simple English sentence

    So how did you get it totally bass ackwards? (You people scare me).

    It's BECAUSE they are arms (the ones protected) that you can bear them, which was part of the issue in Heller.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Arms include every weapon available and ammo to use those weapons.

    "Bear" means to carry. Another premodern definition was to "use"The army brought weapons to bear on the enemy

    Carry never implies that a person has to carry the weapon but that Arms can be carried by a gun carriage or ship or are the weapons themselves.

  • mad_kalak||

    The work "bear" in that context of the written words of the Amendment is used right next to the word "keep."

    You're torturing the English language to pretend it means "to aim at the enemy" when it was written with the idea of a militia soldier carrying his gun to service. So the amendment could read, in your mind, "...the right of the people to own weapons and aim them shall not be infringed." That doesn't pass even any sort of reasonable think through, let alone a historical understanding of the history of the Amendment.

    You're out in left field there buddy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    When you cannot read a few words in the Constitution for what they are, YOU are torturing the words.

    Bearing does not require aim at the enemy. You can bear your weapon toward a tree or shooting range.

    You gun grabbers are so out there, you cannot even see that more and more Americans are getting states to end gun control.

  • mad_kalak||

    Holy cow, you're as bad as Hiln. You know that right? You're saying the "bear" in the 2nd Amendment protects the right to aim your gun rather than carry it about. Are you aware, that if the liberals in the various courts read the right that way, they would say that there is no right to concealed carry or open carry?

    Think about it. If "bear" in the 2nd Amendment meant to aim rather than carry on your person, a 5-4 SCOTUS decision could say that there is no constitutional protections to concealed carry. Rather, freedom has been expanded by the 7th Circuit in Illinois, the last state to get concealed carry, because the court there said that "bear" meant carry, and that there must be some provision for "bearing arms."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, you get to keep, own, carry, aim, clean, practice with, sell, buy, trade, gift away, receive, pick up, lay down, and much much more with Arms.

    Any judge is suspect who tries to find a way to infringe on the right to keep and bear Arms. There are zero government exceptions to this People's right. None.

  • mad_kalak||

    Well, love1789, you're not engaging in an honest appraisal of reality as it stands. Lots of judges everywhere do infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms, as do legislatures and various executives. Saying it shouldn't be so doesn't make it so.

    Furthermore, if you were caught, say with a shotgun that was 17 1/2" in barrel length that a federal agent sold you to entrap you (even if we both think such restrictions are unconstitutional), pulling out your pocket constitution and telling the ATF agent putting cuffs on you wouldn't be much help, nor would it as the judge denied you bail, nor would it help with the prosecutor who would railroad you into a prison sentence.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No.

    To "keep" arms, and to "bear" arms.

    The 2 verbs refer to the very same noun.

    So, the arm which one can "keep" also has to be one that you can "bear".

    The founders had plenty of words to use if they wanted to write an amendment protecting any and all weapons.

    That said, all fire"arms" are arms. The question is when does a weapon cease being a firearm and become a machine gun or cannon.

    A cannon is clearly not an arm.

    What about a tripod mounted .30-06 machine gun? Fires the same round as the bolt-action deer rifle. So, why is it not an arm?

    Closer to home - the M16. Only difference between it and an AR15 is the full auto capacity.

    Why is it not an arm? I can't think of a good reason that it is not.

  • mpercy||

    Heller:

    At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment … indicate[s]: 'wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.' " Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

  • mpercy||

    Heller:

    Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

    The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling. (smirk)
    Start at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS, NOT the decision, but the background, reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    You lose for the 4,734th time.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

    You lose again, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Cy||

    You bring a cannon to "Bear." A cannon is an "Arm."

    The founders just got done fighting a war, why would they limit what kinds of weapons they would be allowed to use in the next one? The Bill of Rights were written to limit government not the people.

  • sarcasmic||

    The Bill of Rights were written to limit government not the people.

    Yet those who are tasked with executing and interpreting it are the very same people the document is intended to limit. They don't want to be limited. They want absolute power. So they will creatively interpret plain words to mean the exact opposite in order to keep and increase their power.

  • Cy||

    "The Bill of Rights were written to limit government not the people."

    Side note, should that be "was" or "were"?

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No.

    To "keep" arms, and to "bear" arms.

    The 2 verbs refer to the very same noun.

    So, the arm which one can "keep" also has to be one that you can "bear".

    The founders had plenty of words to use if they wanted to write an amendment protecting any and all weapons.

    That said, all fire"arms" are arms. The question is when does a weapon cease being a firearm and become a machine gun or cannon.

    A cannon is clearly not an arm.

    What about a tripod mounted .30-06 machine gun? Fires the same round as the bolt-action deer rifle. So, why is it not an arm?

    Closer to home - the M16. Only difference between it and an AR15 is the full auto capacity.

    Why is it not an arm? I can't think of a good reason that it is not.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No.

    To "keep" arms, and to "bear" arms.

    The 2 verbs refer to the very same noun.

    So, the arm which one can "keep" also has to be one that you can "bear".

    The founders had plenty of words to use if they wanted to write an amendment protecting any and all weapons.

    That said, all fire"arms" are arms. The question is when does a weapon cease being a firearm and become a machine gun or cannon.

    A cannon is clearly not an arm.

    What about a tripod mounted .30-06 machine gun? Fires the same round as the bolt-action deer rifle. So, why is it not an arm?

    Closer to home - the M16. Only difference between it and an AR15 is the full auto capacity.

    Why is it not an arm? I can't think of a good reason that it is not.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No.

    To "keep" arms, and to "bear" arms.

    The 2 verbs refer to the very same noun.

    So, the arm which one can "keep" also has to be one that you can "bear".

    The founders had plenty of words to use if they wanted to write an amendment protecting any and all weapons.

    That said, all fire"arms" are arms. The question is when does a weapon cease being a firearm and become a machine gun or cannon.

    A cannon is clearly not an arm.

    What about a tripod mounted .30-06 machine gun? Fires the same round as the bolt-action deer rifle. So, why is it not an arm?

    Closer to home - the M16. Only difference between it and an AR15 is the full auto capacity.

    Why is it not an arm? I can't think of a good reason that it is not.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No.

    To "keep" arms, and to "bear" arms.

    The 2 verbs refer to the very same noun.

    So, the arm which one can "keep" also has to be one that you can "bear".

    The founders had plenty of words to use if they wanted to write an amendment protecting any and all weapons.

    That said, all fire"arms" are arms. The question is when does a weapon cease being a firearm and become a machine gun or cannon.

    A cannon is clearly not an arm.

    What about a tripod mounted .30-06 machine gun? Fires the same round as the bolt-action deer rifle. So, why is it not an arm?

    Closer to home - the M16. Only difference between it and an AR15 is the full auto capacity.

    Why is it not an arm? I can't think of a good reason that it is not.

  • Cy||

    Again, the Bill of Rights was written to limit the government, not the citizens.

    "Arms" includes any and all weapons.

    They did not specify the type of Arms for a reason. That reason? They literally just got done fighting a war against one of the most powerful militaries the world had ever seen. They understood what it takes to win a war like that and NEWSFLASH, it's not with whatever weapons the enemy will LET you carry.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

    It's really clear. It says every weapon or type of weapon, an ARM and it specifically says that the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed.

    Anyone who start pulling this apart to restrict people's rights is being disingenuous and probably sucks a lot of authoritarian cock.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    If the Founders had wanted to do what you think the 2A does they certainly had the command of the English language to do jus that.

    Instead you want to pretend they were stupid enough to write an amendment that says you have the right to "bear" (carry) a cannon.

    The plain English language is the simply barrier you have to cross.

    And f you too pal. I'm more of a 2A absolutist than you. I just believe the Founders were intelligent and knew exactly what they were doing.

  • mad_kalak||

    *slow clap* for AZ Guns.

  • Cy||

    "If the Founders had wanted to do what you think the 2A does they certainly had the command of the English language to do jus that."

    and... They did!

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

    It's really clear. It says "Arms."

    ARE THERE ANY SPECIFICATIONS OF ARMS LISTED IN THE 2nd AMENDMENT? NO! Because they knew people would do exactly what you're trying to do.

  • mad_kalak||

    Can you carry a cannon Cy. Maybe some small 12 pounders of the era. Your reading is wishful thinking.

    Let us extend your logic about specificity. The First Amendment *specifically* references the freedom of the press....therefore, should all other written forms of communication should not be protected, because, after all, the first amendment ONLY specifically says "press."

  • Cy||

    I can carry a cannon. But, that really doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. You're attempting to limit what you'll allow people to defend themselves with. I'm not.

    You're attempting to apply the same fallacious logic to the 1st amendment. I'm not.

    The Founders just fought a war with whatever Arms they could get their hands on, because that's war. They almost lost on a couple occasions. They would've lost if Britain weren't busy in other parts of the world. Some of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were killed for it and had their whole families wiped out.

    It is extremely unlikely that any of the men present at the creation and ratification of the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of Rights, had any doubt about the very clear meaning of:

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    But maybe, I will concede, there was a Tory in the back secretly hoping everyone would be dumb enough to limit how they would arm themselves for when the British or Spanish invaded US soil.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Sorry, the burden of proof is on you to show that that the Founders meant "arms" in the 2A to refer to all weapons.

    At the time, as clearly shown by how they spoke of "arms" they knew when they wrote the 2A that "to keep and bear arms" refers to personal weapons that one would carry.

    It would have been simple for them to write an amendment that does what you want it to do.

    They didn't.

    But then they revered language too, not just freedom.

    obtw, the militia clause of the 2A doesn't do much other than reflect the anti-Federalist's desires that the militia be the appropriate defense of the country - it doesn't modify the Constitution in any way nor does it modify the operative clause of the 2A.

    It was a "consolation prize" to the anti-Federalists who lost every battle over the adoption of the Constitution. We got the Bill of Rights out it, but other than that all the anti-Federalists got was a nod.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As someone pointed out, the term is Arms and not small arms.

    Small arms being used to describe weapons that are carried.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    That's the popular vernacular today.

    Then, not so much.

    So far I've not seen anyone offer any example of the Founders' noting that one would "keep" a cannon (in their house for example) or bear a warship.

    That fact that people owned both cannon, and with the permission of gov't (a point many don't note when pointing that out) would put them on ships and act as legal pirates doesn't make either cannon or warships "arms" as used in the 2A.

    Context is key.

    That is the beauty, and curse of the English language.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    ps: you may indeed have a right to cannons, tanks, warships etc.

    I've never said you don't, just that the 2A doesn't protect it.

    That right may be found in the 9A, or in the general fact that the Constitution doesn't permit the gov't to restrict your right to them.

    But, you'll have to make that argument using the 9A, or the Constitution. The 2A is clearly not about those types of weapons.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Founding Father did not tend to make mistakes with words meaning something they did not intend. The language in the Constitution is very deliberate.

    "Arms" signal all armaments which includes weapons and ammo. Notice that the Founders did not say ammo or munitions? Arms means all weapons and ammo to use for whatever lawful purpose you wanted.

    That main purpose was defending yourself against a tyrannical government who would surely have every modern Arm available to use against citizens.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "Arms" signal all armaments.

    You make that claim but the simple English sentence belies it.

    Again, point to contemporary writing of the Founders that suggest that when they said "to keep and BEAR arms" they meant ALL armaments, including weapons that one obviously cannot bear like a cannon or warship.

    Why didn't they say "the right to the sword and every terrible implement of war" (you are familiar with that quote I hope) "shall not be infringed"?

    Now that would be a 2A that does what you want it to do.

    And it has a ring to it, very catchy. Hard to miss the point then wouldn't it be?

  • Michael Hihn||

    The founders just got done fighting a war, why would they limit what kinds of weapons they would be allowed to use in the next one?

    THEY DIDN'T! The limit was what existed at the time.

    Miller explains why the militia can NOT be applied to military usage, because the militia was EXPLICITLY preferred to a military. He cites several writings from the time. You have nothing.

  • mpercy||

    Heller goes into excruciating detail as to the historic, linguistic, grammatical, judicial, and overall meaning of the words in the 2nd. Whole paragraphs on "keep", "bear", "keep and bear", "arms", etc.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    According to the 9 justices, 4 of whom completely hate the right to keep and bear Arms.

  • mpercy||

    "4 of whom completely hate the right to keep and bear Arms"

    And whom Scalia dissects repeatedly, tearing their minority arguments down over and over in no uncertain terms.

    It says "shall not be infringed" and I'm on-board with that.

    You're right that "shall not be infringed" is for practical purposes "shall not be infringed unless SCOTUS says it's ok" and that is something to be worried about.

    In the meantime though, Heller is about as strong a version of defining what is and is not "infringing" AND clearly states that the RTKABA is NOT tied to service in a militia.

    "Held:

    "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.

  • Naaman Brown||

    "Held by SCOTUS in DC v Heller 2008:

    "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."

    "traditionally lawful purposes" not just "self-defense within the home"

    The DC law banned having an operable gun in the home for self-defense. SCOTUS note only struck that down but ruled 2A supported traditionally lawful purposes.

    Before Heller'08, my home state courts had ruled on the state constitutional protection of the right of the citizens of this state to keep and bear arms to specifically protect self defense in the home and military marksmanship training, but to also include traditional, lawful purposes such as hunting, protecting livestock, recreational shooting, and collection as curio or keepsake.

  • Rossami||

    re: "The "bear" part of the Amendment, meaning "to carry" limits the amendment's protections to small arms."

    No, it does not. To bear has multiple meanings both today and at the time the Bill of Rights was written. Those meanings included not only "to carry on one's person" but also "to carry in one's vehicle" (cart, etc) and "bring to bear" as in to aim and prepare to use. Your crippled interpretation of the word "bear" does not survive semantic analysis. There is no inherent limit in the wording of the Second Amendment that restricts it to small arms.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No.

    "To bear" may have multiple meanings, but they both refer to carrying arms. You can carry them for personal reasons, like self-defense, or you can "bear arms against" the enemy. Heller discusses this.

    But in English, to bear, and "to bring to bear" do not mean the same thing, not even close to the same thing.

    To bring to bear means to point the weapon at a target.

    To "bear" means to carry.

    English is a marvelous language. It seems that an awful lot of people who don't want to use it correctly.

  • Michael Hihn||

    When SCALIA says you're full of shit ... (lol)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
    It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • WJack||

    May come as a surprise to Hihn:

    U.S. V. Miller: Held that ownership of weapons for preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day are protected.

    McDonald v City of Chicago, at p.1 the Supreme Court said "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    This type of thing is filtered out by his cognitive bias subsystem.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I whupped your sorry ass again, just below

    Michael Hihn|5.15.18 @ 1:15AM

    (smirk)

  • Michael Hihn||

    I cite rulings. Guntards babbble and whine. Most are

    US v Miller (1939)

    The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they 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.

    EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons ... Continues for a few hundred words, in great detail on 2A limits --- which is why the NRA was TOTALLY HELPLESS against the Assault Weapons ban (what it's called) for TEN LONG YEARS..

    Guntards - Libtards = Zero
    Both lie, shamelessly, to advance a tribal. anti-liberty agenda by force of law ... aka statist

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • SH68137||

    Guns & gun parts not covered by a ban are just as capable and lethal as those that were.
    If you ban certain guns, fewer people will die with THOSE guns.
    Just do not expect overall murder rates to change.

    And I believe the bigger misconception in America is the police have no "duty-to-protect" you.
    SCOTUS has ruled on the subject many times here are three main case Law rulings.
    Warren vs District of Columbia
    Gonzales vs Castle Rock
    DeShaney v. Winnebago County

  • sarcasmic||

    Cops don't carry guns to protect the public. They carry guns to protect themselves from the public. We are the enemy.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Seventy-eight minutes after the shooting began, a police sniper killed Huberty with a single shot to the chest.

    78 minutes? Jesus fucking Christ, whatever you Heroes in Blue do, don't, I don't know, try to assault the place or do anything to stop the guy that might result in one of you Brave Heroes getting yourselves hurt or killed. I mean, it's not like it's your job to try and stop people like this assclown.

  • T. Lord||

    Slightly off-kilter: "a Ruger 10/22 hunting rifle." That description is distracting, because it invites puzzled reactions like this one, even if it's the gun with the most at-critter shots taken overall (which might be the case).

    Could you hunt certain things with a 10/22? Yes -- squirrels, possums, rats, rabbits ...

    But it's not a great example of a "hunting rifle," because despite its sometimes use for that, its specialty is being general-purpose. This sounds a bit like "a Volkswagen Beetle race car." Possible? Sure -- there's Herbie the Love Bug, and successors in interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPgv_9DDnns

  • Ron||

    all guns are assault weapons thats no reason to ban them

  • Cynical Asshole||

    People who know better may nevertheless support "assault weapon" bans as a tactic for achieving more stringent gun restrictions down the road.

    No. Shit.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    The right to arms, because it is a derivative of the right to self defense, which is a derivative of the right to life, is not subject to cost/benefit analysis.

    There is simply no ground upon which the gov't can prohibit me the possession of a semi-auto fire"arm".

    ALL fire"arms" are arms.

  • Michael Hihn||

    When you get a majority on the Supreme Court, ONLY then may you reverse 79 years of judicial precedent.
    For now, the law of the land is not determined by your (or anyone's) bellowing.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "bellowing", whew! that's a hoot coming from you.

  • daveski99||

    These guns are designed with the purpose of killing as many humans as possible in the shortest time. The history is written and well known. I do not want to live on a hair trigger ready for the shooting to start, neither should children in school. Weapons that are able to inflict maximum casualties in the shortest amount of time should be either banned or licensed after background checks, training, and a strict certification program.

    This is especially true with the AR-15. When you shoot an AR-15 you feel its power but it's not so powerful to throw you back and make you lose your ability to fire another round accurately. The fact it's not fully automatic is not much of a hindrance. In fact, semi-auto is the way to take out the maximum number of people. The AR-15 trades caliber size for an increase in the round to round accuracy. It's not like a heavy hunting rifle that will throw you off target once you shoot. The lighter caliber also allows twice the amount of ammunition to be carried! So a human killing machine it is. Perhaps not as good on a bear hunt but we can see even in semi-automatic mode it can take out a lot of people. Perhaps in the next big shooting, we will see a coordinated event with multiple shooters blocking exits and trying to take out everyone in a school. Well, they have their weapon. It's only a matter of time.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nope. The 2nd Amendment 100% prohibits the illegal schemes you are mentioning.

    Feel free to garner enough support to change the Constitution.

  • Michael Hihn||

    SCOTUS says you're nuts, gun troll.

    I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Start at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. are NOT the decision, but background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    Full stop

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gun grabber troll.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Gun grabber troll

    Shame on me posting actual rulings vs your babbling bullshit.

    You're the troll who defiantly defends sucking the government teat and WHINING about our crushing debt-- but MORE DEBT is okay ... if it lines YOUR pocket, because ... you're ENTITLED!

    Entitled to steal from your own children ... and calling YOUR OWN FATHER "selfish as shit" for resisting cuts to HIS entitlement .. with such crushing debt ... but new debt for YOU is fine.

    The moral hypocrisy of the Authoritarian Right. (shudder)

  • Cy||

    It's for the children? Check.
    I'm scared, blah, blah, but ma feelz!? Check.
    Appeal to sucking government cock? Check.

    Ignorance of firearms? Check.
    Diving into details to somehow legitimize slaver mentality? Check.
    Reinforcing scary stuff? Check.

  • sarcasmic||

    If schools were not 'gun free zones' then those who ignore the rules wouldn't choose them as places to shoot up. You don't see mass shootings at places where people aren't prohibited from being armed.

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't see as many. I'm sure there are outliers. There always are.

  • ||

    Weapons that are able to inflict maximum casualties in the shortest amount of time should be either banned or licensed after background checks, training, and a strict certification program.

    So, if I want to inflict maximum casualties in the shortest amount of time it's OK as long as I don't use a gun without a license? What if I want to inflict the maximum amount of casualties with a firearm but am OK with it being over a more protracted period, would I still need a license?

    Also, should I be concerned about poisoning too quickly without a license as well or should I just stick with the slower-acting, harder-to-detect poisons like dimethylmercury, tetrodotoxin, and polonium?

  • daveski99||

    Well, if the AR-15 is truly protected by the 2nd amendment, what about the Squad Automatic Weapon? They are a lot of fun and you can rent one on the range in Utah. RPGs? Why not? Why should the line be drawn there? Also, why not have random armed people around when the President is making a speech? I think that could solve all our problems.

  • Cy||

    People already have open access to thousands of different kinds of explosives in ridiculous quantities. We literally drive fuel bombs around. We let kids pump GALLONS of gasoline into our cars. The list of horrifying things that human beings can do if they get a wild hair up their ass is far longer than I have time in my day to write down.

    When open and concealed carry were being considered, there weren't enough articles out there talking about the future rage killings and OK corral moments that were going to plague our society, it never happened.

    There are over 360,000,000 citizens in the US. Most of them can/could do a lot of damage no matter how many weapons you ban or how many different ways you try to make murder more illegal.

    Using fear as a dictator for policy making and voting makes you nothing more than a pawn to those who peddle fear.

    The 2nd was written by revolutionaries whom knew that one day they may need to revolt again and they sure as hell weren't going to limit what they would allow themselves to fight off an oppressor with. They wrote "arms." Not "small arms." Not "whatever arms the government allows." Not "whatever arms people don't fear."

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    It's pretty fucking clear.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Used to be that you could buy dynamite in any hardware store until your fellow leftists started bombing sprees in the late '60s. Gun violence is empirically lower now than it was 25 years ago, but let's say for the sake of argument that it's worse. What's the real problem, the availability of the tool, or the various sicknesses of mass society that lead segments of the population to commit wanton mayhem?

  • AZ Gunowner||

    You raise a good question.

    Why can full auto rifles, "M16's and the like" to quote Scalia, be banned (essentially thru the NFA etal)?

    They are clearly fire"arms", and Heller quotes a definition that says ALL firearms are arms.

    Why is the M16, Tommy gun or Uzi not protected?

    They are clearly arms, and they are clearly arms that would be useful in a militia. Also, quite effective self-defense weapons.

    On another note, I find it humorous that I have bought true "weapons of war" direct from the US Gov't (well, thru the CMO of course) - M1 Garands and M1 Carbines.

    And for my money, the Garand is a far more dangerous weapon than the AR15.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Well, if the AR-15 is truly protected by the 2nd amendment,

    It's not. Scalia confirmed that. And explained why

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • mpercy||

    "These guns are designed with the purpose of killing as many humans as possible in the shortest time."

    Then millions of people have been using them wrong.

    Personally, I've fired hundreds of rounds through each of my AR-15-style rifles, and *never* once fired them at a living creature, let alone a human.

    And now you're telling me I've been using the weapon outside of its designed for purpose?

  • Rat on a train||

    I've fired thousands of rounds through M-2, M-16, M-60 and M-249 without killing anyone. They all must have been defective.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    ha ha ha!

    "When you shoot an AR-15 you feel its power but it's not so powerful to throw you back and make you lose your ability to fire another round accurately."

    No, I don't "feel its power". But you are right, it shoots a lesser powered INTERMEDIATE rifle round so it is a great weapon for women or others with less strength like the old.

    But as to it being a superior killing machine that is absolute bunk.

    It is no more dangerous, and arguably less dangerous than the US military "battle rifles" of WWI or II, like the Springfield 03 (bolt-action .30-06) or M1 Garand (semi-auto .30-06).

    Hit for hit you'll have more kills with the .30-06. But I don't have any trouble keeping those on target either.

    Do you really believe all that fantasy you gave us?

  • Harvard||

    Every argument the left presents to criticize the AR makes it the very embodiment of the weapon the 2nd intends the citizenry necessarily equip itself against the tyrannical government it was intended to confront.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Bullshit.

  • TX_Teacher||

    After decades of arguing the same things over and over with new generations of gun-grabbing statists, hoplophobes, and know-nothings, I have finally settled upon one I can live with, a gentle compormise.

    I call it the "No. F_ck off." protocol.

    Got stats saying I need to give up my guns? "No. F_ck off."

    Got your latest creative interpretation of some SCOTUS utterance? "No. F_ck off."

    Got an emotional appeal after the latest crime I yet again had nothing to do with? "No. F_ck off."

    Saying the gummint's gonna come take them anyway, so I better give them up while I still can? "No. F_ck off."

    Thank you for your time.

  • TX_Teacher||

    Also, typos happen, and I don't seem to be able to edit. "No. F_ck off."

  • Earth Skeptic||

    You can spell out "fuck". Chances are your students will not see your posts.

  • Poe's Law Incarnate||

    My remaining vestigial manners forbid it.

  • Naaman Brown||

    The manners of the Vestigial Virgins brought great honour on the Roman state.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Got stats saying I need to give up my guns? "No. F_ck off."

    You lose.

    Got your latest creative interpretation of some SCOTUS utterance? "No. F_ck off."

    You lose (actual text, linked to original sources)

    Do you understand the value of original sources? Ask a teacher.
    The "creative interpretation" is thus YOURS. Ask any teacher.

    Anything else?

  • Poe's Law Incarnate||

    No.

    F_ck off.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Poor loser (sneer)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano linking to his own stupidity again.

  • TxJack 112||

    First, stop calling tactical rifles, " assault weapons". They are not because they do not fit the definition of an assault weapon based on military standards or terminology. I also want to point out that ARs have a legitimate hunting purpose and it is not deer. Throughout the south and southwest, there are herds of feral hogs. In Texas it is estimated there are almost 2 million feral hogs which cause upwards of $400 million in damage annually to crops. They are such a problem, the state considers them a nuisance and allows them to be hunted all year. Only an idiot with a death wish hunts hogs with a bolt action rifle. Hogs hide in thick brush, can run up to 30 mph and have 4-6 inch tucks which can tear you open. If they were to rip open an artery in your leg, you will die in minutes.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I also want to point out that ARs have a legitimate hunting purpose and it is not deer

    It's not about hunting rifles. And if you aim VERY carefully, you can take care of feral hogs with a nuclear missile!
    Kinda silly. And the constitutional precedent is 79 years old.

  • TxJack 112||

    Also, the entire point of the Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd amendment is to limit the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not the people. What I find so fascinating is how those "experts" on the 2nd amendment never consider the result if they applied the same concept to the other amendments. Those opposed to capital punishment for decades have argued it violates the 8th amendment. However, at the time of its ratification, the only forms of execution available were hanging, firing squad or beheading. Using the same logic, any other form of execution is banned because it did not exist at t the time. Those seeking to ban firearms always want to tell us what the term militia means. They often say we have the National Guard and the 2nd amendment means only they are allowed to have firearms. This is perhaps the most idiotic claim I hear made by gun grabbers. First the NG is controlled by Federal Government in conjunction with state governments. Regardless, of who gives the orders, they all come from government. How do they people protect themselves from government intrusion if they have to look to that same government to protect them? That in itself is moronic. All the modern debate about guns, the role of government and our rights begins at the same place, the beginning of the 20th century with TDR who sought to change the role of government in our lives. It expanded further under FDR and has continued to expand until we find ourselves where we are now.

  • Cy||

    It's not worth the effort. We have multiple generations that were raised and are being raised as obedient serfs. You can try to reason with them until you're blue in the face, it won't change a thing.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Also, the entire point of the Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd amendment is to limit the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not the people.

    It's a Bill of RIGHTS .... It's NOT just governments who can deny my rights.

    What I find so fascinating is how those "experts" on the 2nd amendment never consider the result if they applied the same concept to the other amendments.

    YOU claim a right to quarter soldiers in my home.
    YOU claim a right to conduct unreasonable searches of my home.
    YOU claim a right right to violate my freedom of and from religion, assembly and .... YOU CAN PHYSICALLY HOLD ME DOWN, if I'm gathering petitions. Any ANY of the rights unlisted in 9A

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

    Can YOU violate my property tights ... THAT'S THEFT ... and YOU say ANYONE may do so, just not government. The military and local police protect us from only government? The Judiciary?

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieks about arguments no one made, thinks that justifies gun bans.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    As my son the astro-physicist says, the only true things are those you can prove with math.

    So, as Sullum recounts in his article, the data we have, messy as they are, show no statistical correlation of black guns with significant numbers of murders OR events.

    Now just to annoy any progressives who might be scanning these comments, you know what does correlate with murders? Black people. (Looking at percent racial populations by state and murder rates.) So maybe we should ban black people, or perhaps more PC, assault people. We could define 5 or 6 criteria, but we would still know the target is blacks.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "black" guns ... and "scary" guns are bullshit to manipulate people. ... just as badly as the grassroots left is manipulated.

    Left - Right = Zero
    It's the leaderships,
    and how they manipulate followers (the people) toward the leaderships' ends,
    for thousands of years now.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Murders by unarmed assailants using "personal weapons" (hands, feet, etc) have run 500 to 800 per year by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports UCR based on police reports to the FBI. That's twice as many per year than by assailants using rifles of all types (and murders with military-style rifles are a subset of murders with rifles).

    If military style rifles can be banned when they are used in a tiny fraction of murders, why should not hand, feet, and other "personal weapons" be banned when they are used to kill far more people than fall victim to "assault weapons"? When will the voices start intoning, "if it saves one life" and "think of the children"?

  • Michael Hihn||

    If military style rifles can be banned

    They can

    when they are used in a tiny fraction of murders

    That's NOT the reason.

    why should not hand, feet, and other "personal weapons" be banned when they are used to kill far more people than fall victim to "assault weapons"? When will the voices start intoning, "if it saves one life" and "think of the children"?

    ALL THOSE ARE ALREADY BANNED!!!
    There is NO constitutional right to kill people with my hands, feet, a club, a knife, or ANYTHING

    You have confused a RIGHT with an ACTION. AND that you have a cosntitutional right to kill me with an assault weapon. MAKE MY DAY.

  • PeidmontCity||

    It appears to me that we, as a nation, have outsmarted ourselves in the area of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" or anything bordering on the reasonable expectation of "self-defense", by becoming so entrenched in defending the 2nd amendment, and so obsessed with the idea of "bigger (or faster) means better" when it comes to "self-defense" weaponry. I think we've already out-weaponed ourselves.

    When the 2nd amendment, a law intended to provide for our protection, instead weaponizes our own population against itself, "good" guys and "bad" guys, alike, (which are which?) the point of it begins to get very, very lost.

    Its obvious to me, or anyone who's paying even a little bit of attention, the we are facing broad political divides, and the ever-increasing stress of modern-day living, and fractured families or support systems. Individuals have little to look to in the way of psychological help and, for many, to be able to survive in a highly capitalist, and equally highly-taxed society.

    Example (true story): An armed robbery took place in my apartment building on Easter Sunday, 2018. I watched it happen in my apartment building stairwell, through the peep-hole in my apartment door (a metal security door with no less than 4 locking mechanisms.)

    Con't

  • PeidmontCity||

    Con't

    One black male wearing a black hoodie and jeans held a gun against another black male (same height/size) also wearing a black hoodie and exercise shorts, demanded his wallet and continued to hold what looked like a Glock on the victim, insisting he "lay down". Your guess is as good as mine what he intended to do if the guy laid down, but, nevertheless....The victim refused to lay down. Everyone in the building could hear the argument taking place in the stairwell. I'm guessing several tenants own guns, but no one volunteered to come to the victim's rescue. At this point I yelled out (from behind my door) "I'm calling the cops!", and did so.

    As I was on the phone with the police, I described the scene, and the armed robber ran from the building. The dispatched continued to ask me details, who was wearing what, holding what, etc. Most nerve-wracking thing I've had to do in my life was try to sort out bad guy from good guy with proper description. My hoodie-wearing victim-neighbor was holding a cell phone in one hand, and I reported this to try to prevent his being shot by police. The police arrived in amazing speed, but were hesitant to enter the stairwell of the building, fearing they might encounter the gunman, if still inside.

    Con't

  • PeidmontCity||

    Con't

    I don't know if you've ever considered this, but confronting an armed criminal in a stairwell is not the best of circumstances, so I entirely understand the police officer's hesitancy in entering the building (kind of like at Parkland, if you'll remember...). The gunman, as mentioned earlier, had already exited the building and parking lot, and has yet to be found. My neighbor was unharmed, thank god.

    Also in our favor, is that no shots were fired - as there are several families with children living in the building and the walls are not bullet-proof.

    My point is, my neighbor did not have his own gun out and ready at the time he was ambushed in the stairwell by the gunman. No other neighbor, gun or no gun, wanted to confront the gunman, and even the police were hesitant to engage under the circumstances. When a criminal is already gun-out and ready, he's got the upper hand.

    The problem with our current gun laws is that criminals DO find it easy to arm themselves. While I keep hearing about "all the gun-laws" we already have, none seem to be doing the job well enough.

  • PeidmontCity||

    con't

    If you think owning a gun, even a semi-automatic, or whatever, makes you safe, think again. It's the one prepared to do the shooting, and who is focused on doing harm, who has the advantage, not the "good guys", and not the police. I'm actually glad the gunman escaped the scene that evening. I feel sure that even with the police on scene, innocent people would have been at serious risk had he been encountered.

    It may be true that if guns were outlawed, only criminals would have guns (and police, I presume) , but at least it would be easier to recognize the criminals. As for worrying about the "erosion of 2nd amendment rights", I think we have to move away from fears of "give 'em and inch and they'll take a mile..." I think if we don't start giving up our own "inches" on reasonable terms, the mile of road left won't be safe to travel.

    And yes, military-style weapons are a good place to start. At least don't give criminals more fire-power than necessary.

    You can intellectualize and debate all you want to over the 2nd amendment, but real solutions are needed. Things have gotten way too far out of hand, and you aren't here with your gun to protect me.

    Thanks for listening.

  • PeidmontCity||

    PS -- I'm a single white female.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Day before yesterday a white mom fatally shot an armed robber and got on national teevee. The jerk goosestepped off the street into some pedestrians on the sidewalk holding a revolver and making hostile noises. One of the women he advanced on, an off-duty policewoman, shot him thrice through the heart point-blank, permanently incapacitating the perp. She then kicked his gun out or reach and retrieved it with no collateral damage. Here's the story and embedded vid: https://preview.tinyurl.com/ycrhbjwd

  • PeidmontCity||

    Hank, this story doesn't impress me at all in defense of "2nd amendment" (perceived) rights. The man was likely mentally ill which makes him a great example of why we need more restrictive gun control. A guy like him shouldn't have a gun to start with.

    The whole reason it made the news is because the fact that someone was on the scene, trained. armed, and ready to defend, makes it an unusual occurrence. But lets hold that one instance up against the 4 drive-by killings that occurred this past Saturday in my hometown, and the criminals are still winning.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You NAILED it. WHY did that black dude have a gun? Why do he think he NEEDS one?
    Because his victim(s) may be armed. This like nuclear MAD

    Inconvenient questions:

    1) If teachers are armed ... who will be shot first?

    2) MIGHT it be possible that we have so many ARMED bad guys ... BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work in both directions, like the nuclear arms race did?

    3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW

    4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why?

    (You need not know the answers. Merely acknowledge a genuine conflict when two absolute rights are competing)

    The libertarian view for 40+ years: Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately wants that gun ban!

  • Michael Hihn||

    PS -- I'm a single white female.

    (adoring eyes) Do you live near Boise?

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "When a criminal is already gun-out and ready, he's got the upper hand."

    Well that's news.

    "If you think owning a gun, even a semi-automatic, or whatever, makes you safe, think again. It's the one prepared to do the shooting, and who is focused on doing harm, who has the advantage, not the "good guys", and not the police."

    uh, yeah, except for the fact that hundreds and hundreds of times a year people do actually shoot in self-defense. The criminal doesn't always win, even when he has the upper hand.

    "It may be true that if guns were outlawed, only criminals would have guns (and police, I presume) , but at least it would be easier to recognize the criminals."

    Yeah, and all those thousands of people just mentioned above. Guess what, all victims now, many of them dead.

    You realize you've just advocated for people to be at the mercy of violent people.

    That's morally abhorrent.

    So, no, not interested.

    And that's right, I'm not here with a gun to protect you.

    And guess what, if I was there and had the chance you can forget it.

    Someone who wants people to be helpless victims deserves to be one.

  • PeidmontCity||

    Nope. What I'm really in favor of is stricter gun regulation. (Did you even read what I wrote?) The more we weaponize criminals, the more we have to weaponize ourselves, and that just leads to more gun violence, period. Let's take your mindset for example. You already wish me dead. Thanks for proving my point about political diversity. I win. Your words.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ^This

    Thanks for proving my point about political diversity.

    That was more than intolerance, It's pure authoritarianism.

    BTW, the PROOF that he's wrong is that in Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. Guess why.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Yes, I read what you wrote, and responded to it.

    You didn't read what I wrote.

    Are you Hihn's twin?

  • PeidmontCity||

    I did read what you wrote, and I understand your fears, however, the reality is that we are all already at the mercy of violent people when we have to spend our days being afraid and arming ourselves to the teeth to "protect" ourselves from them. They've already won. While I'm sure it does happen occasionally that people to succeed in defending themselves with firearms as a means of self-defense, it happens even more often that innocent people are shot and killed by criminals, and even by accident, as happens all the time. Throw in suicide statistcs -- and we have ourselves a daily "mass shooting" happening in the US. (It is so much easier to act on suicidal tendency when you know you have a quick and easy way out in the form of a gun.)

    So, again, in conclusion, we do ourselves more harm than good to create a situation where we have an overly-weaponized society. We are enabling the criminals and the "grim reaper" through intentional violence, unintended accident, and suicide, more successfully than we are defending ourselves. I can show you plenty of statistics on this if you like....

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No, estimates run as high as 2.5 MILLION defensive gun uses per year. And that number is confirmed by the CDC.

    Criminal use of guns is far, far, below that.

    You can "show" me all the statistics you like. Problem is they are all crap if they come from the gun control side.

    Read this guy - medium (dot) com/ @bjcampbell/the-gun-solution-f9339609b3b8 (this is the last of his several part series, go thru all of them).

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Now, note that he is proposing a "gun control" scheme that I absolutely reject (what he calls a license to purchase), but he does in his series absolutely destroy, using "statistics", every single gun control argument there is.

    But as to being at the "mercy of violent people". I'm not.

    I'm also not foolish about this issue, nor do I have any "fears" (other than rational ones - unlike most panty-wetting hoplophobes).

    I know I have very little chance of being the victim of a violent crime. Why, because I don't do drugs (not that there is anything wrong with that), no hang around people that do, nor do I hang around with criminals. And I don't live in the inner city progressive utopia's like Chicago.

    And I haven't for 62 years now. And I've never been a victim of violent crime, nor had to even display a gun to ward off crime.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    And I live in AZ, an absolute utopia for gun owners, no permit necessary for even concealed carry. But our murder rate is about 8/100k vs Chicago which is about 18/100k.

    But I do have a gun with me, everyday (in the car at least since I can't carry into work with me).

    Why, same reason I have a fire extinguisher or smoke alarms. I've never had a house fire, but better to have those things than not.

    Same with a gun. If you never need it, no big deal. But if don't have it and need it, might be the last mistake you make.

    Oh, and just remember, it doesn't take a gun to do violence. In most rapes hat occur in the US the assailant doesn't use a weapon, any weapon. He doesn't need to because the average man is stronger than the average women. Only a gun gives her a fighting chance.

    You've advocated for disarming people to leave them at the mercy of violent people.

    You are a morally reprehensible person.

  • PeidmontCity||

    I am a morally reprehensible person? -- Well that is certainly a broad, sweeping condemnation. Do you think that of everyone who doesn't agree with you, even if you don't know what their exact position is? And how did you immediately jump to the subject of rape? Because I'm female? Is that where you mind automatically goes when a woman enters the conversation?

    BTW, I am not someone who would be opposed to basic handguns for the purpose of self-protection, although you and others seem to automatically make that assumption. The only thing I advocate for is tighter gun control -- similar to car ownership - requiring licensing, registration and insurance. And yes, I think a certain level of weaponry should be kept out of the hands of the general public, AR-15's included - if for no other reason than they seem to be far too popular for the purpose of mass shootings. So keep your hand gun -- assuming you don't have a history of serious mental health issues, or have never been convicted of a violent crime. (That bar too high for you?)

  • PeidmontCity||

    P.S -- I'm 58 and have never owned or had any reason to want to own or possess a handgun, much less a semi-automatic weapon of any sort. Nor have I even been subjected to violent crime in spite of living in a large city. Self-defense comes in a lot of forms, but I do not accept carrying such lethal weaponry as the brightest of solutions.

    AND -- As for the statistics you refer to (2.5 million DGU's/yr) -- those statistics are not national, and are broadly viewed as being unconfirmed, and even include situations in which the use of a gun was merely perceived, but not proved necessary -- which means there is plenty of room for subjective reasoning as to whether any real gun defense was required to begin with or whether the respondent was even being truthful. That would also explain why the CDC did not publish the results. Too many subjective interpretations to consider.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Actually, those statistics are "national".

    And the CDC not only confirmed (in a later study at the behest of Obama) that Kleck's work is valid but they hid the fact that their own surveys asked the same question and got the same answers.

    Everything is subjective to you isn't it?

    Well girly, your subjective desires don't trump mine.

    If you can ban an AR15 then you can ban any fire"arm". And when they get to that point you will be right on board with them.

    So I'm not going down your road.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The only thing I advocate for is tighter gun control -- similar to car ownership - requiring licensing, registration and insurance.

    Oh, I LOVE when proglydytes bring this up as if it's some kind of "reasonable" regulation. Yes, let's treat owning guns just like owning cars. I get a license, registration, and insurance for my guns. In exchange:

    --The licensing is done with a simple written and operator test (say, similar to CCL or military qualification tests), just like cars, and the license is SHALL ISSUE.
    --The license is reciprocated in all 50 states, just like cars.
    --The license renewal is a simple vision test, just like cars.
    --I don't need a background check to buy a firearm and can buy them across state lines as long as I pay the state tax and registration fees, just like cars.

    Let's treat owning a gun just like we do cars. PLEASE. Doing so would result in the immediate removal of most existing gun control laws.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No, I think people who advocate that people be defenseless against violent people are morally reprehensible.

    You are still not reading what I wrote.

    Your words -

    "It may be true that if guns were outlawed, only criminals would have guns (and police, I presume) , but at least it would be easier to recognize the criminals. As for worrying about the "erosion of 2nd amendment rights", I think we have to move away from fears of "give 'em and inch and they'll take a mile..." I think if we don't start giving up our own "inches" on reasonable terms, the mile of road left won't be safe to travel.
    And yes, military-style weapons are a good place to start. At least don't give criminals more fire-power than necessary."

    Don't tell me that you don't want the victims disarmed. You'll be lying.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    I bring up rape because you need to understand that crime doesn't just happen with guns.

    But only guns make the weak able to resist the strong.

    Any person who thinks that people shouldn't have the right to be armed is morally reprehensible.

  • PeidmontCity||

    "Only guns make the weak able to resist the strong?" I take it you are the weak one. Not supporting the proliferation of guns ins society makes me "morally reprehensible"??
    I am spiritually, morally, socially, and politically strong enough to keep pointing out the fallacy of your arguments. All it takes is a quick trip back to practical reality.

    How does your position or arguments deal with THIS WEEKS shooting at Sante Fe. And how will they justify the NEXT mass shooting of innocent young children at the NEXT SCHOOL??? Trust me, it won't take long. Social trends and the impetus that drives them are still very much at work here. But if were are going to get on our "Moral" high horses, then I'd have to point out that the devil takes on many forms, and I seriously doubt that God has decided to take on the form of a gun. Before you have the audacity to keep marching out your so-called "moral" argument - I'd stop off for some very deep soul searching. You might want to take out your shovel and start digging.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    I sleep like a baby at night.

    But then I understand the concept of right and wrong.

    You live in a alternate reality.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Mr Sullum again argues cogently from facts. Yet I no more expect his excellent article to succeed in changing looter policies than if it had been published under the title "Jewish Weapons" Explained in National Socialist Germany in 1938. Today's 'murrican socialists view all civilians as threats the way their precursor socialists regarded "selfish" Jews as threats. We are fortunate indeed the Second Amendment preserves that one right as we labor to repeal the income tax amendment copied from the communist Manifesto.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You forgot to mention the Deep State, Obama's (long form) birth certificate, and how 9/11 was organized by Dubya but carried out by the Illuminati.

  • Echospinner||

    Wow. Yet another article explaining the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic". Pistol grip, folding stocks. Go slower we the stupid are so confused.

    What most killings happen with handguns?

    Is that the same as a pistol? Does it matter about the kind?

    Thank you Reason. I get it now.

    If guns were rocket science the world would be very different.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Wow. Yet another article explaining the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic"

    Between all the lies and fuckups -- some of which are difficult to differentiate ......

  • The Metonymy||

    Nearly 400 comments and the goddamned bulk of them is Michael Hihn's idiocy and other people pointing out Michael Hihn's idiocy.

    Michael Hihn is an idiot. We get it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Most of mine are defense from aggression like yours.
    This idiot will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling. (dumbed as far as I can)

    See Page 1

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll to page 3. That's where the decision ENDS. Page 3..

    Pages 4-157. The OPINIONS are NOT the ruling but background, reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits.)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons .... used ... by ..... 1800s .... militia

    Anything else?

  • The Metonymy||

    You ignored my point entirely, which is that you're a fucking imbecile.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You ignored my point entirely,

    I SAID YOU'RE A BULLY.
    was THAT loud enough? (snort)

    And PROVED that I know about SCOTUS rulings than you.

    Now ... will you be a THIRD-TIME aggressor?

    (My tone and boldface is in defense if repeated aggression by a cyber-bully.)

    Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

    ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

    Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

    psychopath
    1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
    2. The Authoritarian Left
    3. The Authoritarian Right

  • VinniUSMC||

    Un-Hihn-ged.

  • BILKER||

    in no 4 psychopath you forgot definition no 4 "Michael Hihn".

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks Scalia supported a handgun ban.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Hihn is actually useful to have around, in one respect: He demonstrates an important point.

    While gun controllers are wrong about a lot of factual matters, both technological and historical, and while demonstrating to the general population that they're wrong might be useful, don't ever hope that by proving them wrong, you can change the minds of the gun controllers themselves.

    They're not reasoning their way to gun control from false premises. They're reasoning their way to false premises from gun control. Gun control is their immovable starting point, all the 'mistakes' and lies are dictated by it.

    Don't think, when confronted by gun controllers, that you're dealing with sanity, and just need to get through to them with sweet reason. They're not susceptible to sweet reason. They can only be defeated, not persuaded.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Proving Brett Wrong AGAIN
    I'll will now teach him HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Start at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. are NOT the decision, but background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    weapons used by the militia

    So he's full of shit.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to confirm that M-16s and its non-military derivative, the AR-15, are lawful weapons, since the National Guard is part of the militia.

  • WJack||

    Hihn,

    Whoever taught you how to read owes you a refund.

  • Michael Hihn||

    BEND OVER ,,,, I'll will now teach you HOW to read a SCOTUS ruling.
    Start at Page One.

    1) About 2/3 down, the heading "Held" is where the DECISION (RULING) begins.

    2) Scroll to page 3. That's where the decision/ruling ENDS. Page three.

    See page 4. The OPINIONS. are NOT the decision, but background to the RULING, the reasoning and research, including dissenting and concurring opinions (Both Heller and Miller, list MANY historic references, restrictions and limits)

    One more time: from the DECISION

    Heller Ruling Page One
    1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ...Miller's holding that the sor