Over 1,000 Gun Owners Violate Washington’s I-594- A Gun Control Law- In Front Of Police!

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Nope. I know the history of firearms and SCOTUS decisions on it very well and the first one was US vs Miller where they ruled that since sawed-off shotguns were not typically used by soldiers, Miller's sawed-off was not covered by the 2nd Amendment, citing the militia act and US code as defining the "arms of the average soldier." Since the average soldier was not issued a sawed-off, then they decided that the 2nd did not protect sawed-off shotguns.

Perhaps you are the one needing an education on the subject.

As was suggested, you are lacking in your education of second amendment interpretations.

en.wikipedia.org...

Cruikshank paints a starkly differing opinion of the Second Amendment, and frankly, it is one that I would like to see reinstated.

LOL. I can't believe a liberal comes out in support of Cruikshank. You do realize it was a case of African Americans not being allowed under Jim Crow to own arms for self defense nor vote and the case was asking that the federal government force the state to give equal protection and equal rights under the law as stated in the 14th Amendment to freed slaves, right? In supporting Cruikshank, you support Jim Crow,

First of all, Cruikshank was not a ruling on the second amendment but a ruling on the ability of the federal government to enforce provisions of the bill of rights under federal law. It also ruled that the state could limit first amendment rights.

Do you even read your own citations before you post them? Cruikshank determined that the federal government could not enforce civil liberties to the state. Your link even says this:

In addition the Justices held that the Second Amendment restricts only the powers of the national government, and that it does not restrict private citizens from denying other citizens the right to keep and bear arms, or any other right in the Bill of Rights. The Justices held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, and that it is a right that exists without the Constitution granting such a right, by stating "Neither is it [the right to keep and bear arms] in any manner dependent upon that instrument [the Constitution] for its existence." Their ruling was that citizens must look to "municipal legislation" when other citizens deprive them of such rights rather than the Constitution.

If we really enforced Cruikshank, federal gun control laws would go away.

Secondly, if you wish Cruikshank would return then you also would with that blacks could not vote or assemble or speak freely and want the entire federal civil rights act to be undone:

African Americans in the South were left to the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments dominated by white Democratic legislatures; neither the legislatures, law enforcement or the courts worked to protect freedmen.[10] As Democrats regained power in the late 1870s, they struggled to suppress black voting through intimidation and fraud at the polls. Paramilitary groups such as the Red Shirts acted on behalf of the Democrats to suppress black voting. From 1890 to 1908, 10 of the 11 former Confederate states passed disfranchising constitutions or amendments,[11] with provisions for poll taxes,[12] residency requirements, literacy tests,[12] and grandfather clauses that effectively disfranchised most black voters and many poor white people. The disfranchisement also meant that black people could not serve on juries or hold any political office, which were restricted to voters; those who could not vote were excluded from the political system.

The Cruikshank ruling also allowed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to flourish and continue to use paramilitary force to suppress black voting. As white Democrats dominated the Southern legislatures, they turned a blind eye on the violence. They refused to allow African Americans any right to bear arms.

What we see here is another example of liberal racism.

originally posted by: DrJunk
2nd Amendment is idiotic.

Give us a law that doesn't need to be interpreted.

How about a populous smart enough not to require interpretation?

Too much...right?

Shi.....

a reply to: NavyDoc

LOL. I can't believe a liberal comes out in support of Cruikshank.

It just goes to show that liberals know next to nothing about the importance and history of the 2nd Amendment. They know so little about the gun control movement that has, historically, been a tool of racial oppression.

What they fail to understand is that if gun control, as envisioned by the progenitors of such a racist ideology, were implemented today, the oppression of ALL Americans would be widespread and deadly.

Gun control in the US is a history lesson on how to kill freed slaves without resistance. It stands as an ever present pillar of our racist history. One that I would love to see stamped out along with the abolishment of slavery.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Psst, I can be in favor of Cruikshank's 2nd Amendment interpretation and not care about the rest of the decision.

Guess what, I just did.

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: DrJunk
2nd Amendment is idiotic.

Give us a law that doesn't need to be interpreted.

How about a populous smart enough not to require interpretation?

Too much...right?

Shi.....

Has nothing to do with the populace and everything to do with SCOTUS.

originally posted by: DrJunk
a reply to: NavyDoc

Psst, I can be in favor of Cruikshank's 2nd Amendment interpretation and not care about the rest of the decision.

Guess what, I just did.

Except Cruikshank didn't interpret the second amendment, it interpreted the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause which was the amendment under question and before the court at the time. Do you even understand how SCOTUS works? Methinks you slept through civics class. SCOTUS said that the Federal Government could not enforce it to the states as at the time the BOR was considered to apply to congress.

Secondly, you would disagree with their interpretation as they plainly said,"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress,and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." The right to keep to bear arms is a natural right and does not depend on the second amendment to exist, that it shall not be infringed at all by Congress. Their interpretation, as stated in their own majority opinion, would do away with federal gun laws.

Thirdly, the same decision was made on voting rights, free speech rights, and freedom of assembly rights if you are going to cherry pick a SCOTUS decision, miss the entire point of the decision and misinterpret the meaning of the decision and all of the other results, then it's rather useless to pretend to quote and understand SCOTUS decisions.

Fourth: the entire gun question in that case was about state gun laws that were implemented to deny blacks the right to keep and bear arms so they could be intimidated by the Klan. It seems that you are cool with that.

here is another incident that proves gun registration leads to government interference and confiscation. luckily this guy was not carrying his legal gun. but the cops apparently have access to the gun registration database of other states via the computers in their patrol cars. if this guy had had his registered gun he would have been in a world of trouble because of over zealous anti-gun police.

www.washingtontimes.com...

the cattle lowe "freedom" never knowing they are not free and never knowing the danger even as they are led content and trusting to the slaughter house. They say to each other "Don't be silly! The farmer loves us. surely he would never allow harm to come to us!"

a reply to: TrueAmerican

PERFECT! Now...if we could only multiply that by 1000 and march on Washington, things MIGHT get better. But still...a beautiful thing!