They make *what* for kids!?

[Thoricia]

So you agree you should listen to doctors about medicine, and scienctists about science? Do you also agree then you should listen to lawyers regarding the law?

We are. Five of them in fact.

Those five are wrong, you only listen to the supreme court judges that support your opinion, I thought everyone knew that.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

We are. Five of them in fact.

Those five are wrong, you only listen to the supreme court judges that support your opinion, I thought everyone knew that.

I'm still alarmed it was only five.

[Mavorpen]

We are. Five of them in fact.

Those five are wrong, you only listen to the supreme court judges that support your opinion, I thought everyone knew that.

Of course they're wrong.

[Thoricia]

Those five are wrong, you only listen to the supreme court judges that support your opinion, I thought everyone knew that.

I'm still alarmed it was only five.

Not me I knew it was going to be those five that's why the 20 or so lawsuits were filed when they were, and even then only Heller made it.

[Thoricia]

Those five are wrong, you only listen to the supreme court judges that support your opinion, I thought everyone knew that.

Of course they're wrong.

Of course.

[Gun Manufacturers]

If we do, I could really use an M40. I don't have a bolt action rifle for long range target shooting yet (I only have a 10/22 and a Rock River Arms LAR-15).

Pssst go with a Savage, my model 116 7mm magnum dropped a cow elk like a sack of shit this winter very accurate I love it so much I bought one in a 22-250 coyotes fear me.

But the US Military doesn't use Savage rifles, they use Remington rifles. Besides, I like my firearms like I like my legos (tons of options for personalization).

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I'm still alarmed it was only five.

Not me I knew it was going to be those five that's why the 20 or so lawsuits were filed when they were, and even then only Heller made it.

Yeah, but I kind of thought the Second Amendment was pretty straightforward and unambiguous; especially for US Supreme Court justices.

[Mavorpen]

Not me I knew it was going to be those five that's why the 20 or so lawsuits were filed when they were, and even then only Heller made it.

Yeah, but I kind of thought the Second Amendment was pretty straightforward and unambiguous; especially for US Supreme Court justices.

It was straightforward. The Court consistently ruled against individual rights in cases before Heller.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Since they don't have opposable thumbs, we'd get a free firearm when we shot them. I could get into deer hunting if it meant adding to my firearms collection.

You don't deer hunt? Oh you are missing out then.

It's not the concept I'm opposed to, I just haven't done well (historically) with blood and guts (the first time I watched my dad cleaned a trout, I puked). I've gotten better since then, but I still have a gag reflex that I'm hesitant to test by field dressing a deer.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Yeah, but I kind of thought the Second Amendment was pretty straightforward and unambiguous; especially for US Supreme Court justices.

It was straightforward. The Court consistently ruled against individual rights in cases before Heller.

No, they didn't.

[Thoricia]

Pssst go with a Savage, my model 116 7mm magnum dropped a cow elk like a sack of shit this winter very accurate I love it so much I bought one in a 22-250 coyotes fear me.

But the US Military doesn't use Savage rifles, they use Remington rifles. Besides, I like my firearms like I like my legos (tons of options for personalization).

More and more tactical police units are switching to the Savage, we shall overcome the 700 tyranny!!!

[Mavorpen]

It was straightforward. The Court consistently ruled against individual rights in cases before Heller.

No, they didn't.

Might want to actually read the cases then.

[Thoricia]

You don't deer hunt? Oh you are missing out then.

It's not the concept I'm opposed to, I just haven't done well (historically) with blood and guts (the first time I watched my dad cleaned a trout, I puked). I've gotten better since then, but I still have a gag reflex that I'm hesitant to test by field dressing a deer.

Never had that problem, but I could see it being one, you just have to grit your teeth and git-r-done, first time I dressed an elk, after I shot it and I walked up to it and saw the size of it I was like "Fuck how am I going to dress this big muddafucka." If think deer dressing is bad try elk, you have to almost crawl into the rib cage to cut the trachea and esophagus

[Lunatic Goofballs]

No, they didn't.

Might want to actually read the cases then.

I am: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_c ... ted_States

Presser v. Illinois (1886) rules that owning firearms is an individual right.

United States v. Miller (1939) Where the Supreme Court verifies that the sole purpose of the right to bear arms is to make sure that people are trained in the use of firearms should the need arise for them to be organized into a militia.

And finally, DC v Heller.

[Occupied Deutschland]

It's not the concept I'm opposed to, I just haven't done well (historically) with blood and guts (the first time I watched my dad cleaned a trout, I puked). I've gotten better since then, but I still have a gag reflex that I'm hesitant to test by field dressing a deer.

Never had that problem, but I could see it being one, you just have to grit your teeth and git-r-done, first time I dressed an elk, after I shot it and I walked up to it and saw the size of it I was like "Fuck how am I going to dress this big muddafucka." If think deer dressing is bad try elk, you have to almost crawl into the rib cage to cut the trachea and esophagus

This is why I like antelope hunting.

It's like gutting a really big rabbit. Elk are, undeniably, the worst to dress out though. Also the worst to pack out. *shudder* You haven't been tired until you've hauled an elk quarter three miles. That shit sucks more than the gutting I'd say.

[Arnia]

This is why I like antelope hunting.

It's like gutting a really big rabbit. Elk are, undeniably, the worst to dress out though. Also the worst to pack out. *shudder* You haven't been tired until you've hauled an elk quarter three miles. That shit sucks more than the gutting I'd say.

Neither of them try to argue gun control with you either.

[Thoricia]

Never had that problem, but I could see it being one, you just have to grit your teeth and git-r-done, first time I dressed an elk, after I shot it and I walked up to it and saw the size of it I was like "Fuck how am I going to dress this big muddafucka." If think deer dressing is bad try elk, you have to almost crawl into the rib cage to cut the trachea and esophagus

This is why I like antelope hunting.

It's like gutting a really big rabbit. Elk are, undeniably, the worst to dress out though. Also the worst to pack out. *shudder* You haven't been tired until you've hauled an elk quarter three miles. That shit sucks more than the gutting I'd say.

Try it in Idaho's Salmon River country or anywhere around here for that matter, you might walk a mile but you've only really gone a quarter of a mile sometimes, I've been meaning to get south and hunt some of the those little bastards.

[Mavorpen]

Might want to actually read the cases then.

I am: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_c ... ted_States

Presser v. Illinois (1886) rules that owning firearms is an individual right.

United States v. Miller (1939) Where the Supreme Court verifies that the sole purpose of the right to bear arms is to make sure that people are trained in the use of firearms should the need arise for them to be organized into a militia.

And finally, DC v Heller.

I'll need an actual quote from Presser

Miller established a collective right, not an individual right.

[Thoricia]

This is why I like antelope hunting.

It's like gutting a really big rabbit. Elk are, undeniably, the worst to dress out though. Also the worst to pack out. *shudder* You haven't been tired until you've hauled an elk quarter three miles. That shit sucks more than the gutting I'd say.

Neither of them try to argue gun control with you either.

Oh I don't know, I imagine most game animals are anti-gun.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I am: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_c ... ted_States

Presser v. Illinois (1886) rules that owning firearms is an individual right.

United States v. Miller (1939) Where the Supreme Court verifies that the sole purpose of the right to bear arms is to make sure that people are trained in the use of firearms should the need arise for them to be organized into a militia.

And finally, DC v Heller.

I'll need an actual quote from Presser

Check the link.

Miller established a collective right, not an individual right.

No, it didn't. It upheld the federal law regarding sawed-off shotguns on the basis that it was not a weapon type in common use by the military at that time. They interpreted (correctly) that the intent of the Second Amendment was to guarantee that as many people as possible were trained in the use of firearms should the need arise to be organized into a militia. Shotguns in their opinion weren't protected because they didn't suit that need at the time.

Why would you think it upheld a collective right instead of an individual right?

[Mavorpen]

Check the link.

I'm not at my computer.

No, it didn't. It upheld the federal law regarding sawed-off shotguns on the basis that it was not a weapon type in common use by the military at that time. They interpreted (correctly) that the intent of the Second Amendment was to guarantee that as many people as possible were trained in the use of firearms should the need arise to be organized into a militia. Shotguns in their opinion weren't protected because they didn't suit that need at the time.

Why would you think it upheld a collective right instead of an individual right?

Because what you described is collective right theory. Are you aware of what it even is?

[Thoricia]

I'll need an actual quote from Presser

Check the link.

Miller established a collective right, not an individual right.

No, it didn't. It upheld the federal law regarding sawed-off shotguns on the basis that it was not a weapon type in common use by the military at that time. They interpreted (correctly) that the intent of the Second Amendment was to guarantee that as many people as possible were trained in the use of firearms should the need arise to be organized into a militia. Shotguns in their opinion weren't protected because they didn't suit that need at the time.

Why would you think it upheld a collective right instead of an individual right?

Thank god the military started using shotguns then. XD

[Thoricia]

Check the link.

I'm not at my computer.

No, it didn't. It upheld the federal law regarding sawed-off shotguns on the basis that it was not a weapon type in common use by the military at that time. They interpreted (correctly) that the intent of the Second Amendment was to guarantee that as many people as possible were trained in the use of firearms should the need arise to be organized into a militia. Shotguns in their opinion weren't protected because they didn't suit that need at the time.

Why would you think it upheld a collective right instead of an individual right?

Because what you described is collective right theory. Are you aware of what it even is?

"A state cannot prohibit the people therein from keeping and bearing arms to an extent that would deprive the United States of the protection afforded by them as a reserve military force."[151] Presser

[Mavorpen]

I'm not at my computer.

Because what you described is collective right theory. Are you aware of what it even is?

"A state cannot prohibit the people therein from keeping and bearing arms to an extent that would deprive the United States of the protection afforded by them as a reserve military force."[151] Presser

Thank you.

In other words, it supports my claim that the court has consistently argued against the individual right theory of the meaning behind the Second Amendment.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Check the link.

I'm not at my computer.

No, it didn't. It upheld the federal law regarding sawed-off shotguns on the basis that it was not a weapon type in common use by the military at that time. They interpreted (correctly) that the intent of the Second Amendment was to guarantee that as many people as possible were trained in the use of firearms should the need arise to be organized into a militia. Shotguns in their opinion weren't protected because they didn't suit that need at the time.

Why would you think it upheld a collective right instead of an individual right?

Because what you described is collective right theory. Are you aware of what it even is?

Yes. According to your link, it holds that the right to bear arms is dependent on militia membership. That's not what United States v. Miller ruled. Not that it would matter because the militia consists of all able-bodied men between 17 and 45(65 in the case of veterans). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%2 ... _States%29

But the United States v. Miller doesn't support that opinion. In fact, it specifies: "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Thus they state that people are expected to own guns of a kind in common use at the time.