TexasCHLforum.com

“You don’t have a constitutional right to pack an AK-47,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project at the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “It would be a vast, unwarranted, unjustified expansion of the Second Amendment right that’s recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court” if the ban is struck down. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1 ...
I would like to know where he gets his info. According to the 2nd Amendment:
“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.”
I can own any individual served arms I wish. Crew served arms is for the State.

By his logic, you don't have a constitutional right to free speech on radio, television, or the internet.

After all, the founders couldn't possibly have imagined the free speech technology we have available today.

Freedom of the press should only apply to movable type printing presses.

For the children.

Don't forget religions linked to terrorism or pedophilia, since they're arguing based on emotion rather than logic.

Does anyone have the figures for how many "AK-47"s are used in crimes in any given year? Or "assault weapons" (bullmanure definition), for that matter? I can't remember where I saw them last, but the numbers were REALLY small...more hyped rhetoric from the Brady Bunch (of statist idiots).

Heartland Patriot wrote:Does anyone have the figures for how many "AK-47"s are used in crimes in any given year? Or "assault weapons" (bullmanure definition), for that matter? I can't remember where I saw them last, but the numbers were REALLY small...more hyped rhetoric from the Brady Bunch (of statist idiots).

Wayne LaPierres book "Gun, Crimes and Freedom" reported the number of "assault weapons" used in crimes in the 90s as under 3% I believe.

I'll have to dig the book out and check, but it was insanely low.

I've always wanted a real, honest to goodness, bazooka...and some bazooka bullets!

Oldgringo wrote:I've always wanted a real, honest to goodness, bazooka...and some bazooka bullets!

If you have the money you can have one. They are just a DD. Each explosive round is a DD also though.

“You don’t have a constitutional right to pack an AK-47,”

That's a faulty/false premise, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Logic and vocabulary are course subjects skipped by anti-gun people

Issue:
Is an AK-47 an "arm"

Vocabulary word of the day:

arms plural of arm (Noun)
Noun:
Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".

Apparently an AK-47 is an arm.

Are arms covered by the Second Amendment?

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.

1) Anti-gun people are uneducated, illogical, or both.
Alternatively, 2) they are neither but intentionally attempt to deceive.
It is fun asking one which they are if you observe that you won't be able to educate them and they ignore logic.

MeMelYup wrote:“You don’t have a constitutional right to pack an AK-47,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project at the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “It would be a vast, unwarranted, unjustified expansion of the Second Amendment right that’s recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court” if the ban is struck down. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1 ...
I would like to know where he gets his info. According to the 2nd Amendment:
“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.”
I can own any individual served arms I wish. Crew served arms is for the State.

and just why would a crew served weapon system be disallowed? it says no where in the constitution that crew served or destructive devices are disallowed, they are arms and therefore fully leagal unless your a sociaist democrat and dislike weapons in the hands of those that you do not control

Good point. The first shots of the American Revolution were fired over British troops coming to seize a colonial cannon.

Food for thought on what events the Founders may have been thinking about when writing the Bill of Rights.

74novaman wrote:Good point. The first shots of the American Revolution were fired over British troops coming to seize a colonial cannon.

Food for thought on what events the Founders may have been thinking about when writing the Bill of Rights.

The British were to take an arsenal, in Texas there was a fight with Mexican troops over a canon.

It has been over 40 years since I studied that in school. I don't remember a lot of specifics.

MeMelYup wrote:

74novaman wrote:Good point. The first shots of the American Revolution were fired over British troops coming to seize a colonial cannon.

Food for thought on what events the Founders may have been thinking about when writing the Bill of Rights.

The British were to take an arsenal, in Texas there was a fight with Mexican troops over a canon.

My apologies, I shouldn't have said "a cannon", you're correct....I meant more than one, but must have been mixing history in my head as I typed. The British were there to seize what most articles/books refer to as "military stores" meaning powder, shot, and cannon.

Smith's men occupied the town and broke into detachments to search for the colonial munitions. As the British began their work, the Concord militia, led by Colonel James Barrett, was reinforced as other towns' militias arrived on the scene. While Smith's men found little in the way of munitions, they did locate and disable three cannon and burned several gun carriages.

From: http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/ame ... oncord.htm

The point is the militia was protecting large quantities of powder for not just rifles, but cannon as well. So, the idea of the 2nd amendment being crafted just to protect "small arms" is historically incorrect in my view.

You have a constitutional right to pack a nuclear weapon if you want. What part of shall not be infringed doesn't he understand?

JP171 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:“You don’t have a constitutional right to pack an AK-47,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project at the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “It would be a vast, unwarranted, unjustified expansion of the Second Amendment right that’s recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court” if the ban is struck down. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1 ...
I would like to know where he gets his info. According to the 2nd Amendment:
“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.”
I can own any individual served arms I wish. Crew served arms is for the State.

and just why would a crew served weapon system be disallowed? it says no where in the constitution that crew served or destructive devices are disallowed, they are arms and therefore fully leagal unless your a sociaist democrat and dislike weapons in the hands of those that you do not control

It should also be noted that in the times of the founders you could own a cannon and a battleship. Logically today this would include nuclear subs, attack helicopters, and other neat vehicles and arms that the military and government control.