The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post

stephen · 27 August 1999, 01:40 AM

<<the average joe americans right to own a MACHINE GUN might not have been what the founding fathers had in mind>>

<<I dispute your constitutional right to a MACHINE GUN for any reason>>

I'm going to get blasted for this, but its the truth whether we like it or not... so here goes. George Mason, writer of the Second Amendment in the fall of 1791, and the founders who ratified it fully intended for each of us to have full access to all hand held, single man military arms. I make no moral interpretation of this; I simply am observing truth.

Even the leftist Supreme Court has backed this position on multiple occasions, and a recent federal court decision (Emerson vs. US) in Texas. Supreme Court, 1939, US vs. Miller. Probably the most damning decision to date for Second Amendment hackers, and certainly the most misrepresented. In reference to possession of a sawed-off shotgun being under the protection of the Second Amendment, the court ruled that "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."

Therefore, for a weapon to have Second Amendment protection, it must have a military application. Such as fully automatic hand held machine guns, hand grenades, high capacity magazines, large caliber assault weapons? Now, of course, the Second Amendment hackers are worse off than when they started. The ruling further defined the milita as ANY male physically capable of serving in a defense capacity, and those militia men were obligated to supply their OWN military type arms when service was required, implicitly making ownership of fully military arms not only legal but a necessity.

Sorry. That's the way it is. For those of you who don't like it, I would suggest repealing the amendment rather than deliberately violating it.

I've been through this a number of times, so I'll warn you in advance... the more you try to research the Second Amendment, the deeper you dig your own hole. If the Second Amendment hackers were smart, they'd align themselves with the NRA (who still support background checks and oppose automatic weapons) and count your blessings.

The hysterical response line starts here. Those with nasty personal attacks please line up on the left.

27 August 1999, 01:40 AM	#38 (permalink)
stephen Forum Ace Join Date: Aug 1998 Location: USSRA. One Nation, Under Surveillance. Posts: 2,516	<<the average joe americans right to own a MACHINE GUN might not have been what the founding fathers had in mind>> <<I dispute your constitutional right to a MACHINE GUN for any reason>> I'm going to get blasted for this, but its the truth whether we like it or not... so here goes. George Mason, writer of the Second Amendment in the fall of 1791, and the founders who ratified it fully intended for each of us to have full access to all hand held, single man military arms. I make no moral interpretation of this; I simply am observing truth. Even the leftist Supreme Court has backed this position on multiple occasions, and a recent federal court decision (Emerson vs. US) in Texas. Supreme Court, 1939, US vs. Miller. Probably the most damning decision to date for Second Amendment hackers, and certainly the most misrepresented. In reference to possession of a sawed-off shotgun being under the protection of the Second Amendment, the court ruled that "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." Therefore, for a weapon to have Second Amendment protection, it must have a military application. Such as fully automatic hand held machine guns, hand grenades, high capacity magazines, large caliber assault weapons? Now, of course, the Second Amendment hackers are worse off than when they started. The ruling further defined the milita as ANY male physically capable of serving in a defense capacity, and those militia men were obligated to supply their OWN military type arms when service was required, implicitly making ownership of fully military arms not only legal but a necessity. Sorry. That's the way it is. For those of you who don't like it, I would suggest repealing the amendment rather than deliberately violating it. I've been through this a number of times, so I'll warn you in advance... the more you try to research the Second Amendment, the deeper you dig your own hole. If the Second Amendment hackers were smart, they'd align themselves with the NRA (who still support background checks and oppose automatic weapons) and count your blessings. The hysterical response line starts here. Those with nasty personal attacks please line up on the left. __________________ There will never be concentration camps in America. We'll call them something else.