Well spoken supporter of gun rights

[bczandm]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Nlb_qRoeg

k6Nlb_qRoeg

[SouthPaw]

Saw this earlier today

“Loonies from the left”

/thread

[DOC]

I thought he said "Looters from the left." A callback to Atlas Shrugged. One of my favorite books.

[DOC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yBrovyfN4g

[Irving]

Slow clap.

[KAPA]

Yet he is willing to turn in all his guns if his local .gov passes a law.

I'll be hanging out with the bloods and the crips. They seem to be more American than this sell out.

[CS1983]

He is pissed. He is royally pissed. /keyandpeele

[68Charger]

Some of us may offer buyback programs...
With the proper licensing, of course... [Wink][Wink]

[Unsuccessful]

He definitely had some good things to say, and I am pleased to see him sticking up for our rights in the venues that matter. The point of the second amendment is to protect ourselves against a corrupt government I.e. One that is taking away the rights of its people. I think I'll hang on to my guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sawin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Nlb_qRoeg

k6Nlb_qRoeg

I can appreciate his passion and position on the matter. Well done good Sir.

[TFOGGER]

He makes great points. All of which will be lost upon the Left, because they FEEL differently.

[newracer]

Yet he is willing to turn in all his guns if his local .gov passes a law.

I'll be hanging out with the bloods and the crips. They seem to be more American than this sell out.

I would be willing to bet he actually would not turn in a single one.

[Irving]

Has anyone ever successfully plead the 2nd?

[Gman]

Has anyone ever successfully plead the 2nd?
What? The Constitution? That old thing? Bah....

[Irving]

Never mind, I'm way off in the weeds.

[Gman]

If/when the [shithitsfan]...all bets are off.

ETA: Too late, I already read your comment. [mop]

[Irving]

That was my point, but it was a point that didn't need to be made, probably.

[KAPA]

Is he a sell out? Rest assured, I publicly agree with him. On any media (such as this site) or meeting (such as he was attending), I'd be happy to announce I'd unhappily comply with any law regarding the one and only firearm I own.

Somehow, individuals announcing their intention to break the law seems unwise.

I used to be like that but quite frankly people need to realize that the constitution does not give us our rights. Its only an agreement that the gov will not try and take them away.

The left hears that guy and says ok lets pass a law and disarm that guy. If we start telling them we will kill you where you stand if you try and disarm us, maybe that gets the point across more clearly.

[GilpinGuy]

The left hears that guy and says ok lets pass a law and disarm that guy. If we start telling them we will kill you where you stand if you try and disarm us, maybe that gets the point across more clearly.

I believe this was addressed 200+ years ago, but it actually came down to us killing them, not just saying it. History doesn't always repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

[GilpinGuy]

Has anyone ever successfully plead the 2nd?

Good question. Are you telling me nobody has ever gone to the Supreme Court and said "It says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! WTF!" Maybe someone has and the court ignored the Constitution. Wouldn't surprise me.

[theGinsue]

If we start telling them we will kill you where you stand if you try and disarm us, maybe that gets the point across more clearly.

I think you're looking at this backwards.

The Left ALREADY plans to disarm this guy and every other citizen. They know most will comply when unConstitutional laws are put into place. They WANT someone to come out and say "we will kill you where you stand if you try and disarm us". Why? Because this gives them more justification for implementing these laws in the first place. Plus, with the new "Red Flag" laws, they don't have to wait to for their new laws or for you to turn in anything, they'll be at your door with a search warrant and come and take every firearm you own (even those not affected by the new laws).

[MarkCO]

Has anyone ever successfully plead the 2nd?

Yes, several times.

[Irving]

Yes, several times.

Against the government, or in defense of their person, not involving the government? This is why I deleted my other post, because I felt like I was drawing a distinction that isn't there.

On another note, I really feel like the left is violating one of their main operating criteria by trying to enact rules regarding me without my explicit consent. My life, my freedoms, my rules. No means no.

[def90]

Is he a sell out? Rest assured, I publicly agree with him. On any media (such as this site) or meeting (such as he was attending), I'd be happy to announce I'd unhappily comply with any law regarding the one and only firearm I own.

Somehow, individuals announcing their intention to break the law seems unwise.

What firearms? I lost them a few years back in a canoe accident!

[Aloha_Shooter]

On another note, I really feel like the left is violating one of their main operating criteria by trying to enact rules regarding me without my explicit consent. My life, my freedoms, my rules. No means no.

The only rule the Left has is to do anything that strikes down at traditional American heritage or culture using anything in their powr (and a lot of things that legally are NOT in their power). They don't care about YOUR freedoms, YOUR life, or YOUR consent. The only thing that matters to them is what THEY want. If you're expecting consistency between what they say and how they act ... don't.

[SAnd]

United States vs Miller. This upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934. This might not meet you criteria because Miller was dead when the Supreme Court ruled on the case. The court ruled partly that the law did not violate the Constitution because the gun in question was not a gun that the militia would use therefore it wasn't protected. This means it isn't about hunting guns, it protects weapons that the military might use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

District of Columbia vs Heller 2008. This ruled against some of the District of Columbia's gun laws. It ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual rights. It also ruled the right is not unlimited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

I don't trust Wikipedia totally but it was handy.
I don't know if there are any other federal Supreme Court rulings.

[Ah Pook]

Where is the rest of the silent majority?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Nlb_qRoeg

Edit: Sorry for the repost.

[OtterbatHellcat]

I'm down with the man and what he had to say...Thank you to him.

[Rucker61]

United States vs Miller. This upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934. This might not meet you criteria because Miller was dead when the Supreme Court ruled on the case. The court ruled partly that the law did not violate the Constitution because the gun in question was not a gun that the militia would use therefore it wasn't protected. This means it isn't about hunting guns, it protects weapons that the military might use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

District of Columbia vs Heller 2008. This ruled against some of the District of Columbia's gun laws. It ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual rights. It also ruled the right is not unlimited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

I don't trust Wikipedia totally but it was handy.
I don't know if there are any other federal Supreme Court rulings.

Caetano v Massachusetts:

No firearm currently on the legal market qualifies as being dangerous and unusual. Such was addressed in the followup Caetano ruling when the state of Massachusetts tried to utilize the "dangerous and unusual" standard to prohibit the private ownership of electronic stunning devices.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

The Supreme Judicial Court’s holding that stun guns may be banned as “dangerous and unusual weapons” fares no better. As the per curiam
opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. Because the Court rejects the lower court’s conclusion that stun guns are “unusual,” it does not need to consider the lower court’s conclusion that they are also “dangerous.” See ante, at 1–2. But make no mistake—the decision below gravely erred on both grounds.

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “‘designed and constructed toproduce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’ ” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby
, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid. , 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘anything that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Common wealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.

[Rucker61]

What's more interesting are the beliefs behind the Circuit Court rulings that upheld state or local bans on "assault weapons" - Friedman v Highland Park, Shew v Malloy, Kolbe v Hogan plus the single judge ruling in Worman v. Healey.

Friedman v Highland Park (Highland Park is a suburb of Chicago):

"If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events. ...If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit. "

Shew v Malloy (Connecticut assault weapons ban):

"The Connecticut legislation here bans firearms in common use. Millions of Americans possess the firearms banned by this act for hunting and target shooting. See Heller II, 670 F.3d 1244, 1261 (finding "[a]pproximately 1.6 million AR-15s alone have been manufactured since 1986, and in 2007 this one popular model accounted for 5.5 percent of all firearms, and 14.4 percent of all rifles, produced in the U.S. for the domestic market"). Additionally, millions of Americans commonly possess firearms that have magazines which hold more than ten cartridges.41 See Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1261 (finding that "fully 18 percent of all firearms owned by civilians in 1994 were equipped with magazines holding more than ten rounds, and approximately 4.7 million more [of] such magazines were imported into the United States between 1995 and 2000)." The court concludes that the firearms and magazines at issue are "in common use" within the meaning of Heller and, presumably, used for lawful purposes. The legislation here bans the purchase, sale, and possession of assault weapons and LCMs, subject to certain exceptions, which the court concludes more than minimally affect the plaintiffs' ability to acquire and use the firearms, and therefore levies a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights"

You'd think that would be enough, right?

Kolbe v Hogan (Maryland assault weapons ban)

"Today the 4th Circuit decided Kolbe v. Hogan, a Second Amendment challenge to a 2013 Maryland arms prohibition statute. The statute bans the sale of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and also bans many firearms, by labeling them as “assault weapons.” In a 2-1 decision written by Chief Judge Traxler, the Fourth Circuit held that strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for bans on common arms, such as those at issue in Kolbe. The case was remanded to the district court, which had applied the wrong standard, namely a weak version of intermediate scrutiny. "

The Attorney General of Maryland, recognizing the disaster a strict scrutiny precedent would mean to all gun laws, immediately called for an en banc court, which relooked at the case with the following statements in the opinion that upheld the ban:

"Other massacres have been carried out with handguns equipped with magazines holding more than ten rounds, including those at Virginia Tech (thirty-two killed and at least seventeen wounded in April 2007" - Lie. The VT shooter only had ten round magazines (as did the Parkland shooter)

"We conclude — contrary to the now vacated decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach." The M16 is banned/restricted for one reason, and one reason only - it's a "machine gun" under NFA 1934. If you want to restrict ownership of a firearm because it's "like""M-16 rifles", honesty would dictate that it would have to have the same capabilities that allow the federal government to restrict M16s. The claim "weapons that are most useful in military service" is interesting, in that the AR-15 and similar are so useful in military service that the military has exactly zero in the inventory compared to 10-15 million owned by citizens for lawful purposes. Another outright lie by the judiciary.

"Reports from that testing indicated that “the very high-velocity AR-15 projectiles” had caused “[a]mputations of limbs, massive body wounds, and decapitations.”" - from about the weakest centerfire cartridge with the most humane bullet.
"The difference between the fully automatic and semiautomatic versions of those firearms is slight." No, the difference is a felony.
"Moreover, soldiers and police officers are often advised to choose and use semiautomatic fire, because it is more accurate and lethal than automatic fire in many combat and law enforcement situations."
"For example, some of the banned assault weapons incorporate flash suppressors, which are designed to help conceal a shooter’s position by dispersing muzzle flash. Others possess barrel shrouds, which enable “spray-firing” by cooling the barrel and providing the shooter a “convenient grip.”"
"The banned assault weapons further pose a heightened risk to civilians in that “rounds from
assault weapons have the ability to easily penetrate most materials used in standard home construction, car doors, and similar materials.”
“their rounds easily pass through the soft body armor worn by most law enforcement officers.”
"The State’s evidence demonstrates that, when inadequately trained civilians fire weapons equipped with large capacity magazines, they tend to fire more rounds than necessary and thus endanger more bystanders".
"The State has also pointed to an important lesson learned from...Aurora (where a 100-round drum magazine was emptied without any significant break in the firing). Another outright lie.
"Simply put, AR-15-type rifles are “like” M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term. " Standard definitions don't count. Legal reasoning for banning the M16 does, to an intelligent person, anyway.