SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: IRS trains with "assault" rifles< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Scot Search for posts by this member.
Some light Slayer please...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1617
Joined: May 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 11:40 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

http://www.politico.com/story....62.html

Anti- 2A people want to get EBAR's (Evil Black Assault Rifles) out of the hands of law- abiding citizens. Where are their cries to keep them out of the hands of IRS agents?

Anti- 2A people expect citizens to call law enforcement if they need assistance. Why not the same expectation with the IRS?

Anti- 2A people believe AR- 15 "assault" rifles have no place except for the military. Why are they ok with the IRS possessing these "assault" rifles?


--------------
The tree of liberty must be renewed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots for it is its natural manure
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 11:56 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Not everyone who disagrees with your views on gun control is "Anti- 2A"

There are many existing restrictions to the possession of arms that 99.999% of the general public generally accept - does that make them "Anti- 2A" too?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6393
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 12:03 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

If the 2A doesn't cover the right to own a particular weapon (read Heller) then people who want to make such weapons illegal are not anti-2A.

In fact, someone who wants to own a weapon not covered by the rights guaranteed by the 2A is the real anti-2A because, in essence, they are against the 2A to the extend it doesn't include the right to own the weapon they want to own.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6393
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 12:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

As for the issue of IRS agent training, Jeff Duncan is apparently ignorant of the real world.

IRS Special Agents (the agents assigned to criminal investigations) often participate in the execution of search warrants along side DEA and FBI agents involving large scale drug dealers and organized crime.  some of those situations may require that the agents be armed with assault weapons to counter expected resistance or at least intimidate those who might otherwise put up resistance.

Every participant in such an event needs to be capable of handling the necessary weapons.  so it is entirely appropriate and logical for IRS agents to be training with those weapons.

How one gets elected to Congress without knowing that is the real mystery.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19503
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 12:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So Scot,

What is your stance on this issue?  (you didn't actually say)

Should IRS agents be allowed to carry military style weapons?

After all, becoming an IRS agent does not mean you surrender your individual 2nd Amendment rights.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 12:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I'm not sure I've met an anti-2A person. Do they exist in large numbers?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6393
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 12:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

BTW - even though I don't think every firearm is protected by the 2A, I think a war on guns will be as big a failure as the war on drugs has been.  We'd be better off legalizing and regulating rather than prohibiting, because prohibition of objects rather than behavior never prevents criminals from possessing the prohibited objects.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
bill g Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 422
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 2:29 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Jun. 13 2013, 12:10 pm)
QUOTE
Every participant in such an event needs to be capable of handling the necessary weapons.  so it is entirely appropriate and logical for IRS agents to be training with those weapons.

Actually, that's not true. The assault is on the government's duplicating everything under the sun. In civilian life even in the most violent situations, EMTs and the Fire Dept aren't the ones carrying weapons. The Police Dept does just fine.


--------------
you don't know what you got till it's gone
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
double cabin Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16692
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 3:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Thanks to the folks with an educated grasp of the actual substance of the 2nd. It's truly sad that millions of Americans have been deceived into thinking the Ammendment doesn't allow for regulation.

--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.

http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6393
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 3:46 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(bill g @ Jun. 13 2013, 2:29 pm)
QUOTE

(nogods @ Jun. 13 2013, 12:10 pm)
QUOTE
Every participant in such an event needs to be capable of handling the necessary weapons.  so it is entirely appropriate and logical for IRS agents to be training with those weapons.

Actually, that's not true. The assault is on the government's duplicating everything under the sun. In civilian life even in the most violent situations, EMTs and the Fire Dept aren't the ones carrying weapons. The Police Dept does just fine.

Obviously you never been involved in the execution of a federal search warrant of a home of a drug lord or gang leader where resistance might be expected.

There aren't any emt's or firefighters there.

Even the supervising attorney is well away from the target sight.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 4:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

There are many Americans who are obviously infatuated with firearms.  Some people just see firearms as the answer to most of life's challenges.

Perhaps some of those same individuals are in decision-making positions within the IRS.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5223
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 4:25 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Nuance is a sign of maturity and the ability to think more deeply on issues.

--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Three Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1082
Joined: Dec. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 5:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The intent of the 2A was for citizens to individually possess the standard military small arms of the period (See Militia Act of 1792) including the standard military long gun of the time.

The version of the standard U.S. Army long gun marketed to civilians today is the AR 15 so the Second Amendment, especially interpreted using the Miller reasoning, guarantees the "keeping and bearing" of AR -15s.

Do not like it?  Repeal or revise the 2A.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 5:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Jun. 13 2013, 12:46 pm)
QUOTE

(bill g @ Jun. 13 2013, 2:29 pm)
QUOTE

(nogods @ Jun. 13 2013, 12:10 pm)
QUOTE
Every participant in such an event needs to be capable of handling the necessary weapons.  so it is entirely appropriate and logical for IRS agents to be training with those weapons.

Actually, that's not true. The assault is on the government's duplicating everything under the sun. In civilian life even in the most violent situations, EMTs and the Fire Dept aren't the ones carrying weapons. The Police Dept does just fine.

Obviously you never been involved in the execution of a federal search warrant of a home of a drug lord or gang leader where resistance might be expected.

There aren't any emt's or firefighters there.

Even the supervising attorney is well away from the target sight.

Not always true about fire/ems,
Google tactical EMT

We have been providing tactical medics to law enforcement for well over a decade now, though this practice varies by agency.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6393
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 5:46 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

IRS Special agents need to be competent with the weapons used by the agency they are assisting.  They are not EMT's.  They are law enforcement and when they are on a raid they are part of the front line.

QUOTE
Internal revenue manual:

9.2.3.6  (08-14-2012)
Use of Firearms by Special Agents (Firearms Policy)

Special agents detailed and/or temporarily assigned to another Federal law enforcement agency, will follow the policies and guidelines promulgated by that agency (e.g., temporary Air Marshal, Secret Service details, etc.)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6499
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 6:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Paranoia, paranoia
Everybody's comin' to get me
Just say you never met me
I'm runnin' underground with the moles
Diggin' holes
Hear the voices in my head
I swear to God it sounds like they're snoring
But if you're bored then you're boring
The agony and the irony, they're killing me, whoa!

I'm not sick, but I'm not well
And I'm so hot cause I'm in hell
I'm not sick, but I'm not well
And it's a sin to live this well…
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Three Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1082
Joined: Dec. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 8:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Jun. 13 2013, 5:46 pm)
QUOTE
IRS Special agents need to be competent with the weapons used by the agency they are assisting.  They are not EMT's.  They are law enforcement and when they are on a raid they are part of the front line.

QUOTE
Internal revenue manual:

9.2.3.6  (08-14-2012)
Use of Firearms by Special Agents (Firearms Policy)

Special agents detailed and/or temporarily assigned to another Federal law enforcement agency, will follow the policies and guidelines promulgated by that agency (e.g., temporary Air Marshal, Secret Service details, etc.)

Is it a valid question to ask if we really need 91+/- federal law enforcement agencies,  2A aside?

http://www.fletc.gov/about-fletc/partner-organizations

Seems like a lot of redundancy.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6393
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 13 2013, 9:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Three @ Jun. 13 2013, 8:43 pm)
QUOTE

(nogods @ Jun. 13 2013, 5:46 pm)
QUOTE
IRS Special agents need to be competent with the weapons used by the agency they are assisting.  They are not EMT's.  They are law enforcement and when they are on a raid they are part of the front line.

QUOTE
Internal revenue manual:

9.2.3.6  (08-14-2012)
Use of Firearms by Special Agents (Firearms Policy)

Special agents detailed and/or temporarily assigned to another Federal law enforcement agency, will follow the policies and guidelines promulgated by that agency (e.g., temporary Air Marshal, Secret Service details, etc.)

Is it a valid question to ask if we really need 91+/- federal law enforcement agencies,  2A aside?

http://www.fletc.gov/about-fletc/partner-organizations

Seems like a lot of redundancy.

It is a valid question.

But the FBI can't be a jack of all trades.  Most of our regulatory laws require specialized training.

Federal Law Enforcement is responsible for sending the operators of Tonawanda Coke to jail for poisoning the neighborhood around the plant.

For some reason, the good old free market system didn't work too well in that instance.

TONAWANDA COKE FOUND GUILTY
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5223
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 14 2013, 9:01 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It took the IRS to put Al Capone in jail. Do you want your local cop on the beat having to disarm bombs? Immigration agents inspecting produce? If only the world were a simpler place.

--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7218
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 14 2013, 10:03 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringe:  violate or transgress

To paraphrase: Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be violated or transgressed.

That's pretty clear that there are no limits.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 14 2013, 11:19 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Jun. 14 2013, 10:03 am)
QUOTE
Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringe:  violate or transgress

To paraphrase: Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be violated or transgressed.

That's pretty clear that there are no limits.

I'm sure it won't matter to you, but the Supreme Court disagrees with your opinion.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43949
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 14 2013, 12:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Jun. 14 2013, 8:19 am)
QUOTE

(Montanalonewolf @ Jun. 14 2013, 10:03 am)
QUOTE
Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringe:  violate or transgress

To paraphrase: Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be violated or transgressed.

That's pretty clear that there are no limits.

I'm sure it won't matter to you, but the Supreme Court disagrees with your opinion.

Hell Scalia disagrees with that opinion.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6393
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 14 2013, 12:27 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Jun. 14 2013, 10:03 am)
QUOTE
Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringe:  violate or transgress

To paraphrase: Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be violated or transgressed.

That's pretty clear that there are no limits.

What shall not be infringed?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" has no universal definition.  It has to first be construed to determine what it is that can't be infringed.

It doesn't mean whatever every guniot wants it to mean.

First, does it mean only those "arms" that existed at the time of the enactment?  No? Ah, then you need to construe it to include more than muskets and cannon.  

The Supreme Court has stated that it has not fully construed the right to bear arms, but it gave us some examples of things it does not cover.  for example, it does not include the right of a felon to own a firearm, so prohibiting possession of a firearm by felons is not an infringement of the right to bear arms.

Same as yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not within the rights defined by the First.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Scot Search for posts by this member.
Some light Slayer please...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1617
Joined: May 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 14 2013, 12:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Jun. 13 2013, 12:03 pm)
QUOTE
If the 2A doesn't cover the right to own a particular weapon (read Heller) then people who want to make such weapons illegal are not anti-2A.

DC v Heller states common use. I'd say millions upon millions of AR- 15's amongst gun owners is common use. So if you're against the AR-15, you're anti- 2A.


LameBeaver,

My stance... Well, I find it concerning. A lot of people want the AR- 15 banned. They scream from the top of a mountain that those guns are baby killers. But you don't hear any outcry from those individuals when it seems like every arm of the government is beefing up with the same kind of rifle. Our government says those guns only have a place on the warfield, yet they then turn around and equip IRS agents. I thought they were "military weapons of war." Are they saying then that our government is at war with us?

And for the sake of budgets, why the heck does an IRS agent need to participate in a RAID??? Will FDA agents be doing surprise raids with AR-15s soon because you cook your cupcake in an unhealthy manner? We have the FBI that can carry out law enforcement duties. We have local police departments that could assist. It is crazy that every arm of the government wants to arm themselves to the teeth. Our government is growing so inefficient!

Summing it up, it is concerning to me. I've been fortunate to live around the world and see what countries can devolve into. It's concerning to see our government weaponize more and more while the same government is trying to disarm the citizens it is supposed to serve.


--------------
The tree of liberty must be renewed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots for it is its natural manure
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 14 2013, 1:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Scot @ Jun. 14 2013, 9:50 am)
QUOTE
My stance... Well, I find it concerning. A lot of people want the AR- 15 banned. They scream from the top of a mountain that those guns are baby killers. But you don't hear any outcry from those individuals when it seems like every arm of the government is beefing up with the same kind of rifle. Our government says those guns only have a place on the warfield, yet they then turn around and equip IRS agents. I thought they were "military weapons of war." Are they saying then that our government is at war with us?

Is our gov at war with us?

Or are they just trying to be prepared for any potential confrontations with a citizenry that essentially has unfettered access to AR-15 and similar style weapons?

I believe it's the latter.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43949
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 14 2013, 1:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"common use" was from United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174,

"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

"Miller stands only for the proposition that theSecond Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only thoseweapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean thatthe National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men wereexpected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool ofmen bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawfulpurposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamenand weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizensfor lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.That accords with the historical understanding of thescope of the right, see Part III, infra.25"

As well as not protecting the aforesaid " dangerous and unusual weapons. " I would expect. Defining what those might be Keller left for another day as they were focused on handguns*.

pg. 57
..."III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone throughthe 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...."


Though the opinion DOES specifically mention M-16s being banned..

pg 58
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be aseffective as militias in the 18th century, would requiresophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and theprotected right cannot change our interpretation of theright.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


*"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,the inherent right of self-defense has been central to theSecond Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to aprohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster."
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 14 2013, 3:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Scot @ Jun. 14 2013, 12:50 pm)
QUOTE
My stance... Well, I find it concerning. A lot of people want the AR- 15 banned. They scream from the top of a mountain that those guns are baby killers.

The ones I hear screaming about the AR-15 are the gun nuts.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Scot Search for posts by this member.
Some light Slayer please...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1617
Joined: May 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 14 2013, 5:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

These people are gun nuts? Huh, you could have fooled me...












--------------
The tree of liberty must be renewed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots for it is its natural manure
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 14 2013, 5:19 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Can you provide a transcript from any of those you've pictured above screaming from the top of the mountain that those guns are baby killers?

Gun enthusiasts frequent use of such exaggerations actually hurts their cause more than helps it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 14 2013, 5:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Scot @ Jun. 14 2013, 5:07 pm)
QUOTE
These people are gun nuts? Huh, you could have fooled me...


Those are politicians. The people most likely whining about AR-15's on the internet are paranoid gun nuts.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
57 replies since Jun. 13 2013, 11:40 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply IRS trains with "assault" rifles
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions