Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Montana Conservationists Defend Obama on Hunting, Gun Issues

  1. #1
    Guest

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    The 2A has nothing whatever to do with 'hunting' or 'sport'. The 2A is recognition of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, not something 'granted' by any government entity or commission.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    The 2A does protect people's rights to bear arms to hunt;

    Butthis interest is less significant than the 2A interests in individual self-defense and collective self-defense --including defenseagainst tyranny.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    By protecting bearable arms, 2A may have the effect of protecting arms used for hunting, but the word hunting does not appear in the text of the amendment. Is hunting mentioned in the federalist papers or something? Why would anyone think there was any intention for 2A to protect hunting?

    Did anyone but me notice that this article is 6 months old?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Naw, I noticed who posted it. So much to read, so little time.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    Actually, this is something I've been thinking about. In U.S. v Miller, the government's argument was that the short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon and thus not a "militia" weapon protected by the Second Amendment. Is U.S v Miller saying that weapons used by the National Guard (a select militia) ARE protected by the second amendment? So, where's my M4?



  7. #7
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    The 2A does protect people's rights to bear arms to hunt;

    Butthis interest is less significant than the 2A interests in individual self-defense and collective self-defense --including defenseagainst tyranny.
    NONE of which Obama believes in.

    I can't make you stop lying.

    You can't make me believe you.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  8. #8
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    thorvaldr wrote:
    Actually, this is something I've been thinking about. In U.S. v Miller, the government's argument was that the short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon and thus not a "militia" weapon protected by the Second Amendment. Is U.S v Miller saying that weapons used by the National Guard (a select militia) ARE protected by the second amendment? So, where's my M4?

    I'm glad someone else noticed this little non-sequeter. For the sake of argument, I'll limit my view of 'Miller' to small arms, not ordinance.

    Since 'Miller' argued a weapon must have 'military applications' (my wording) to be covered under the 2A, it would seem that we should all have legal access to (at bare minimum) anything local police carry/use (AR-15's, high cap magazines, etc), and realistically, fully auto weapons as well (without needing a C3 license).

    Personally, I'd like to see someone challenge the next AWB under the'Miller' ruling when (unfortunately) Obama getselected .









  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    AZkopper wrote:
    thorvaldr wrote:
    Actually, this is something I've been thinking about. In U.S. v Miller, the government's argument was that the short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon and thus not a "militia" weapon protected by the Second Amendment. Is U.S v Miller saying that weapons used by the National Guard (a select militia) ARE protected by the second amendment? So, where's my M4?

    I'm glad someone else noticed this little non-sequeter. For the sake of argument, I'll limit my view of 'Miller' to small arms, not ordinance.

    Since 'Miller' argued a weapon must have 'military applications' (my wording) to be covered under the 2A, it would seem that we should all have legal access to (at bare minimum) anything local police carry/use (AR-15's, high cap magazines, etc), and realistically, fully auto weapons as well (without needing a C3 license).

    Personally, I'd like to see someone challenge the next AWB under the'Miller' ruling when (unfortunately) Obama getselected .



    "Since 'Miller' argued a weapon must have 'military applications' (my wording) to be covered under the 2A, it would seem that we should all have legal access to (at bare minimum) anything local police carry/use (AR-15's, high cap magazines, etc), and realistically, fully auto weapons as well (without needing a C3 license)."



    A great big, giant, humongous, stupendous, and ultimately huge AMEN to that!



    JoeSparky
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    thorvaldr wrote:
    Actually, this is something I've been thinking about. In U.S. v Miller, the government's argument was that the short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon and thus not a "militia" weapon protected by the Second Amendment. Is U.S v Miller saying that weapons used by the National Guard (a select militia) ARE protected by the second amendment? So, where's my M4?

    If I'm not mistaken, short barreled shotguns were used by the military during WWII. They were exellent trench cleaners. They may have been used in the Korean war, and I'm pertty sure they were used in Veitnam as well.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    thorvaldr wrote:
    Actually, this is something I've been thinking about. In U.S. v Miller, the government's argument was that the short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon and thus not a "militia" weapon protected by the Second Amendment. Is U.S v Miller saying that weapons used by the National Guard (a select militia) ARE protected by the second amendment? So, where's my M4?

    If I'm not mistaken, short barreled shotguns were used by the military during WWII. They were exellent trench cleaners. They may have been used in the Korean war, and I'm pertty sure they were used in Veitnam as well.
    They were used by the military BEFORE WWI!
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    The 2A does protect people's rights to bear arms to hunt;

    Butthis interest is less significant than the 2A interests in individual self-defense and collective self-defense --including defenseagainst tyranny.
    Well said Donkey, maybe there is hope for you yet.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  13. #13
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  14. #14
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Huck wroteOk, we won't

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    Dukester wrote:
    Huck wroteOk, we won't
    Will SOMEBODY tell me why the Brady campaign supports the pro gun messiah?
    And "argh I'm a BANNED, anti gun, Obamazombie" doesn't count.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •