they certainly intended a limited federal government that was mutated by the odious FDR administration and its dishonest cowardly judges
How many constitutional rights specifically say "shall not be infringed"? Sounds like they could foresee that a government could try to disarm its people for political purposes. Our founders were some very intelligent people, and wrote a phenomenal document.
My dumoflougee broke the other day and all I could do was turn right. You are exactly right...ever-ready bunny fits perfectly!
I have seen weasels pretend that "infringed" only means a complete ban on guns. That apparently is what the Democrap think tanks are trying to argue-that if you can own a gun-maybe just one, then "your rights have not been infringed" this might be convincing to those who don't understand the BOR. those are a RESTRICTION on what the government may do, not a positive grant on what we citizens may do since it was presumed that we had natural rights and the federal government cannot interfere with them unless a power to do so was delegated to the federal government in Article I section 8 (which has very little -if any powers that apply to individual citizens living in the several states)
My Ruger Mini 14 functions just as well as my AR 15. Shoots the same ammo semi-auto. But for some reason the AR scares city-raised people.
+Not so fast,there are several companies that offer sidefolding adapters for the AR http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...review-law-tactical-folding-ar-stock-adapter/
The .223 caliber Ruger Mini 14 is functionally identical to an AR-15. As long as I'm allowed to own the Ruger semi-automatic that is functionally identical to the AR-15 then my 2nd Amendment Rights are not violated in any manner. My ability to defend myself is not compromised one iota by the different appearance between the two firearms.
This really highlights the stupidity on both sides of the "assault weapons ban" argument. The "anti-gun nuts" oppose rifles like the AR-15 because it's scary looking while the "gun nuts" want rifles like the AR-15 because it's scary looking. The argument doesn't center on public safety, self defense, or the 2nd Amendment. The arguments on both sides relate exclusively to "scary looking firearms" and nothing more.
No it really does come down to just the stupidity of attempting to ban an object because of appearance....nothing more. Whether my gun is scary looking, cool looking, functional, or adaptable is immaterial and not really part of the pro gun movement argument. You are interjecting your beliefs into the scary looking gun discussion. The anti-gun people have long ago convinced me that if you give an inch, they'll take away many miles before common sense will prevail. The strength and voracity of pro-gun citizens responses is very indicative that feeling.
Why yes there are however note that...while folded open...no ability to shoot. No back to my dumoflougee, know where I can get one?
Except for the gas piston as opposed to the direct impingement gas system. And insertion of detachable magazines differs greatly. There is also the matter of the Mini-14 being limited to factory scope rings, and aftermarket magazines are of poor quality. The Mini-14 is far less accurate than the AR-15. So essentially you are saying that your constitutional rights remain intact even though you are allowed to own an inferior firearm. There is also the fact that you are drastically oversimplifying the matter. Whatever protection the Mini-14 possesses only exists so long as it remains equipped with the factory standard ranch-style stock. If you were to swap it for an aftermarket stock that utilized a pistol grip, or adjustable buttstock, you would be guilty of manufacturing a so-called assault weapon. Furthermore the protections do not extend to the target variant of the Mini-14 with its thumb hole stock, or the Mini-14 tactical variant. And in jurisdictions that utilize a one-feature test, the Mini-14 is prohibited because it possesses a ventilated heat shield.
The .223 caliber AR-15 is functionally identical to a Ruger Mini 14. As long as I'm allowed to own the AR-15 semi-automatic that is functionally identical to the Ruger Mini 14 then my 2nd Amendment Rights are not violated in any manner. My ability to defend myself is not compromised one iota by the different appearance between the two firearms
the second amendment was a negative restriction on what the federal government could do encroaching on the bearing and keeping of arms was never a proper power the federal government ever had
So is the first. The second is no less subject to due process than any other right. of course it was, via due process. Just like every other right that can be restricted.
Rights are restricted only where they violate other rights, which is in the spirit of what rights are in the first place. Laws only provide punishment for violating those rights. For instance, the old one about yelling fire in a crowded theater which can result in the loss of life or property damage, a violation of personal property.
And restricting where arms can be carried is no different. Restrictions based on cosmetics however, like heat shields, flash hiders, and bayonet lugs are moronic and serve no state interest.
You kinda' got me there, but kinda' not. By "crowd", I mean people jammed into a room, like in a nightclub, or some event where they're standing in an actual crowd. A theater is a crowded room, kinda', but not very dense. Not like the example that I was responding to, where someone mentioned killing 60 people in 60 seconds. The M&P 15 isn't "identical" to an AR. It simply is an AR. But that case kinda' cancels the claim of "60 dead in 60 seconds" as well, because Holmes was using a triple row 60 round magazine, which jammed. That was what stopped him.
When congress chose to interpret the commerce clause as the authority to do whatever it pleased, and the courts decided to not argue otherwise.
we know that-i have yet to see a gun restrictionist actually able to argue that was an honest action by the odious FDR and his lapdog judges
