Only a fool would go into battle with an AR15..
Your plasma rifle in the 40 watt range wins every time?
Only a fool would go into battle with an AR15..
Your going to case law. I'm going to the founding documents. Lawful purposes fine. The reason the 2nd amendment was put there was to make sure citizens had the right to defend themselves,against a tyrannical government or someone that wanted to take from them life and liberty. You keep with that hunting angle. Maybe they'll let you keep your recurve.
What I still don't get is how we are wrong. And, why you find it so necessary to point this out. I think you are so missing the point.
I contend that you could outlaw hunting and still not violate the 2A.
I agree.
The Miller case upheld the ban on short barreled shotguns on the rational that they were NOT weapons of war.
That would seem to support an argument that the 2A protects ONLY weapons of war.
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.
Heller looked at text and history and simply confirmed the findings of the text and history. They used founding documents for their determination. Heller confirms that the codified right was exactly what you say; to own and use arms to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.They went back to the English bill of rights to demonstrate that it included self defense.
The right is not the right TO hunt, it is the right to own and use arms FOR hunting. This means that there is some connection between the right and hunting. Your claim is that there is absolutely no connection. Restrictions on hunting generally do not violate 2A because they don't tend to implicate the ability to own and use arms (the right protected by 2A).
I am not sure Sarbanes really understands what hunting is, because it is all about killing. The only real difference is the intended target. The mechanism is exactly the same between people and animals.
I point deficiencies like this out because of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Wasn't the internet developed by DARPA, part of DoD, for military use?
No civilian needs access to the internet.
He's an uninformed jerk!
He's an uninformed jerk!
Conservatives just don't have the numbers to vote them out. They will continue to interpret the second amendment as they see fit, Those of us to care will continue to have to argue their
bad laws in court. It's sad.
... Trump hastwosix more years to stuff the judiciary with judges who support the COTUS rather than the DNC. ...
Wasn't the internet developed by DARPA, part of DoD, for military use?
No civilian needs access to the internet.