• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Montana Conservationists Defend Obama on Hunting, Gun Issues

Sonora Rebel

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
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.
 
The Donkey

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
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.
 
T

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
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?
 
T

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
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?
 
Deanimator

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
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.
Click to expand...
NONE of which Obama believes in.

I can't make you stop lying.

You can't make me believe you.
 
AZkopper

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
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?
Click to expand...

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 .
 
J

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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?
Click to expand...

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)."
Click to expand...

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



JoeSparky
 
T

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Deanimator

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
They were used by the military BEFORE WWI!
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...
Well said Donkey, maybe there is hope for you yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top