Looks like the U.K. will never be able to have freedom of gun ownership now

Actually once nominated they can do and take whatever positions they want. And my guess is your documentation is actually opinion masquerading as fact.

 

Note how you move the goalposts - a sure sign you aren't willing to admit you were wrong, maybe even to yourself.

But, under Miller and Heller, it -does- protect the right of the people to keep and bear all classes of firearms.

 

Can you supply the definition of " firearm" used in that decision?

 

Still waiting for you to admit you were wrong.
I mean, you actions have already done so, but I'd like to see the words.
'Cause, if you aren't willing to admit you wrong, especially when you know you were, then there's no reason to believe you have any intention of honestly discussing an issue.

 

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. "

 

That's Miller.
Heller expands it to firearms suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes for same.

 

A fascinating position for the court to take.... since the very type of shotgun defined by their terms was heavily used in the First World War. It was a statement either of ignorance or one specifically tailored to buttress governmental authority in defiance of the Constitution.

 

Your guess is wrong. Any even rudimentary reading of the Founders' own words on the subject puts the lie to your claims.

 

Essentially, the court said there was no evidence presented to that effect - unsurprising, in that Miller had died and was not represented at the hearing. The court cannot rule on evidence not presented.

 

No you lost...you didn't qualify your comment with a time line or for that matter any other qualifier. Alas this is the way of the BM....constantly manipulating information to try and make a point they can't make.

 

Qualifiers are normally understood when gun debating to refer to present time. Buying antiques is not relevent to current gun ownership rules.

 

Are you making things up again. Ferl free to post your constitutional reference that says once on the Supreme Court a justice is not free to interpret the Constitutuion any way the Justice thinks is proper.

 

That is a definition of " firearm" Could have fooled me.

 

No you lost...no qualifiers. Admit it and move on. SHEESH!

 

Who are the "elite"?

Honestly, this term gets brandied about so much these days its ridiculous.

 

Those that are allowed to legally exempt themselves from the laws the rest of the populace are forced to live by, due to either their status, or the occupation that they hold.

 

That's because you have no desire to honestly engage in the conversation, as proven by your rather lame attempt to move the goalposts with regard to the legality of machine guns.

The court, in Miller and Heller, has described the weapons protected by, and not protected by the 2nd.
Under those descriptions, the 2nd applies to all classes of firearms, as they all meet the tests laid out by the court.

 

Are you serious?? So if the Justice arbitrarily decides it's "proper" to throw the whole Constitution out the window, you're okay with that?? Sweet merciful crap....

 

So you cannot actually provide the quote from the Constitution that you promised. Why are we not surprised. And just to help you understanding of the English language what I said was that once a Justice is on the Supreme Court that Justice is free to interpret the constitution anyway the Justice wants. If you think interpreting the Constitution means throwing the whole Constitution out the window suggest you find some method of learning English.

 

I'd tell you to show where I made any such "promise", but then everybody already knows your integrity regarding this discussion is questionable at best.

And let me educate you on how this works: Any Justice takes an oath right up front to uphold the Constitution. For him to then "interpret" the Constitution in a way blatantly contrary to the intent of the Constitution is to violate that oath. Sorry, but if the Supreme Court makes a ruling that clearly defies the Constitution that doesn't make it right, and there is no "interpreting" what that would mean. If you're willing to accept brazen corruption of the Constitution just because the Supreme Court says it's okay, then you're a sheep just waiting to be sheared.

 

Here is my post:
↑
"Actually once nominated they can do and take whatever positions they want. And my guess is your documentation is actually opinion masquerading as fact."

And here is your response:

:
"Your guess is wrong. Any even rudimentary reading of the Founders' own words on the subject puts the lie to your claims"

Guess we will have to keep waiting for you to back up your statement! But you are at least correct in that you didn't promise. You just made a claim that you can't actually back up with facts.

 

Much like your claim that machine guns are illegal.

 

That is just silly. The quote that you posted from Miller and Heller refers to shotguns. Has absolutly nothing to do with a definition of " firearms" . Care to try again.

 

On the contrary -- its the law.
That you choose to not understand what it means is not my issue.

 

Again: "Any rudimentary reading":

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson 1823. (Emphasis mine)