TexasCHLforum.com

Gun laws are not designed to prevent bad guys from shooting innocent civilians.

Gun laws are designed to prevent good guys from shooting criminals, tyrants, and other bad hombres.

So why not repeal them all then? Seriously.

Listening to that I heard her say something that I'm curious about. She says that the SCOTUS has determined that possession of machine guns are not covered by the 2A. I don't think that is true. I think what was done was that the SCOTUS said that they could be regulated or something like that, but don't think there is anything in the 2A that prohibits machine guns. Am I wrong?

"I don't know of a gun law that could have stopped the Las Vegas shooting, but that won't stop me from trying to come up with something to further my agenda of banning private ownership of anything that can hurl a projectile at another individual."

AndyC wrote:Just posting this for future use:

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/ ... 5414723790

She's lying, she knows exactly which gun law they believe will prevent events like these - abolition of the 2nd Amendment and total confiscation of all firearms in the hands of the common man.

C-dub wrote:Listening to that I heard her say something that I'm curious about. She says that the SCOTUS has determined that possession of machine guns are not covered by the 2A. I don't think that is true. I think what was done was that the SCOTUS said that they could be regulated or something like that, but don't think there is anything in the 2A that prohibits machine guns. Am I wrong?

Nothing in the 2nd specifies restrictions on any given weapon, it is why it says "....arms." that is plural meaning more than one. In this instance it means more than one type.

The argument presented in the miller case falsely claimed a saw-off shotgun was not a militia weapon, specifically a weapon being used or to be used in a military capacity, therefore not protected by the 2nd amendment.

I do not believe any given weapon has to be military oriented to be 'protected' by the 2nd, it says "....arms" again, plural and non-specific, not "arms generally associated with militia or military oriented ability"

Along with that, if we are to take that argument at face value, then damn near every single weapon now effectively removed from civilian ownership due to the cost involved via the NFA and other illegal legislation, should be non-restricted under the NFA.

if it is weapon which is required to be military service oriented, then all belt-fed, select fire, and RPG & bazookas should be unrestricted for purchase & ownership via the NFA. As all of those weapons are militia or military service oriented and/or in current use.

under the miller argument, taking it at face value, a bow & arrow, spears, swords, and slingshots, should be the items restricted or taxed under the NFA as they are not weapons oriented towards militia service or military use. They are all weapons however they are not oriented towards militia or citizen military use/service, therefore they are what should be subject to the $200 tax and registry.

wil wrote:

C-dub wrote:Listening to that I heard her say something that I'm curious about. She says that the SCOTUS has determined that possession of machine guns are not covered by the 2A. I don't think that is true. I think what was done was that the SCOTUS said that they could be regulated or something like that, but don't think there is anything in the 2A that prohibits machine guns. Am I wrong?

Nothing in the 2nd specifies restrictions on any given weapon, it is why it says "....arms." that is plural meaning more than one. In this instance it means more than one type.

The argument presented in the miller case falsely claimed a saw-off shotgun was not a militia weapon, specifically a weapon being used or to be used in a military capacity, therefore not protected by the 2nd amendment.

I do not believe any given weapon has to be military oriented to be 'protected' by the 2nd, it says "....arms" again, plural and non-specific, not "arms generally associated with militia or military oriented ability"

Along with that, if we are to take that argument at face value, then darn near every single weapon now effectively removed from civilian ownership due to the cost involved via the NFA and other illegal legislation, should be non-restricted under the NFA.

if it is weapon which is required to be military service oriented, then all belt-fed, select fire, and RPG & bazookas should be unrestricted for purchase & ownership via the NFA. As all of those weapons are militia or military service oriented and/or in current use.

under the miller argument, taking it at face value, a bow & arrow, spears, swords, and slingshots, should be the items restricted or taxed under the NFA as they are not weapons oriented towards militia service or military use. They are all weapons however they are not oriented towards militia or citizen military use/service, therefore they are what should be subject to the $200 tax and registry.

I would be willing to trade my revolvers, hunting rifles, .22LR and BB guns for a few rocket launchers, land mines, etc. Maybe partial ownership interest in a tank.

"shall not be infringed"

If nothing else, this tragedy has brought a few more domestic enemies out of the closet.