G
NONE of which Obama believes in.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.
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?
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)."
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.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?
They were used by the military BEFORE WWI!thorvaldr wrote: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.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?
Well said Donkey, maybe there is hope for you yet.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.
Will SOMEBODY tell me why the Brady campaign supports the pro gun messiah?Huck wroteOk, we won't :lol: