Leftforge Doesn't Understand the Second Amendment...

Of course not. Why would you even ask such a silly question?

No, we are stuck with the rulings, regardless of our own opinions on the thought process behind them. That doesn't change the fact that the rulings themselves are still just opinions. That's why I have to laugh at the idiot who invoked SCOTUS as a counter to my statement that the individual right interpretation is an opinion. Even as I typed that post, I knew some idiot would say that, and sure enough, one of the usual suspects did.

SCOTUS has been known to change their mind from time to time. If a ruling comes along that invalidates that part of Heller, will Captain X and Federal Farmer suddenly claim it's a fact that the second does not affirm an individual right?

They will both rate this post as dumb, further proving that I'm right to call them idiots.

Like a moth to a flame,

When you get right down to it, EVERYTHING in law is an opinion. We can't even have a law against murder until we have a broad, consensus opinion on what murder actually is.

However, when an opinion is expressed in a ruling of the Supreme Court, it carries the force of the Constitution. And it can't be so easily dismissed as "just" an opinion. Until someone changes the Constitution by amendment--or, dangerously, attempts to revoke the right through later ruling--it is the law of the land.

The court should practice stare decisis--"let the decision stand"--or it will undermine its own legitimacy. You can't very well declare something an inalienable human right and then some time later say "Oops, we were wrong" without harming the institution. I also say without hyperbole if a future court "revoked" the individual right to keep and bear arms, they risk starting a civil war. Many, many, many people would simply not accept that.

Well, if you were going to do the butterknife thing I guess I would have to try to kill you with a tea cup.

I doubt they will reverse Heller any time soon, but the court has always been a product of its times. Nobody today thinks we should apply stare decisis to Dred Scott, just as an example. And plenty would like to see it ignored for Roe v. Wade and Citizens United. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. Hell, I don't even see how the 2nd works myself if it doesn't involve an individual right. But I can't abide by people saying "this is a fact because somebody offered an opinion on it." No, that doesn't make it a fact, so let's not assume such opinions can authoritatively settle the question.

I wouldn't mind that stupidity quite as much, if people didn't take it to justify the idea that there can be no restriction, regulation, or other impediment to immediate access for all and carrying in every location. It is possible to do some of those things without violating the right. But mention it, and we get threads like this, where people who don't understand the difference between fact and opinion scream about it.

I hope my kids form their own opinions based on more than my influence. (I think this is a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals). Good for you that you did.

But why do you think your conclusion isn't based on conditioning of others? Why would you say it's "perfectly clear" when the evidence indicates otherwise? For instance, what level of arming does the right support? Your statement would lead me to think that sawed-off shotguns are covered by that right.

You are by far the stupidest person on the internet Go back and read post #558. I answered what I thought it mean, again. You read that post and get back to me. Repeating yourself in saying I'm wrong does not cut it. You're going to have to prove that I'm wrong. Anyone can make any claim they want, but you need to back it up. If you think I'm wrong, then why don't you tell us all what you think it means? I've asked you this several times and you still are incapable of doing so. If you still can't do it after reading post #558, then I'm done with you. I'm not going to continue going around in circles with such a buffoon such as yourself.

By accident. I was going to go somewhere with that, but changed my mind, and the auto-save caught it. I thought I'd cleared it out of my response, but obviously didn't.

Well, you've got two different questions here: the function of the "well-regulated militia" clause, and the definition of "arms."

On the first, what evidence is there against my interpretation? It's a question of grammar and clarity of language. If you want the right to bear arms to be contingent on being part of a militia, you write something like this:

The right of the people to bear arms, so long as said arms are used in the service of a well-regulated militia, shall not be infringed.​

Or:

Insofar as necessary to ensure the existence of a well-regulated militia for the defense of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.​

But since the clause isn't written conditionally, we need to err on the side of more rights rather than fewer and assume that it wasn't intended that way.

On the second, I have much less of an opinion about the definition of arms, but I certainly don't think there's any justification for saying it should be frozen in time at 1791. Otherwise, you'd have to argue that freedom of speech and of the press applies only to books, newspapers, pamphlets, and what you can shout unamplified from the town square.

hey farmy, don't have a trump moment. Look, the reality is that no one here thinks any less of you for not being able to understand your own argument. It is all OK because we think the same of you now as we did before you screwed up yet again. So you do not have to get so uptight about the fact you cannot make your own arguments. Not everyone has that ability. So take a deep breath and go screw a sheep or two or whatever gets you off on that farm of yours and relax. It is all good, you are just stupid.

So, still, you have nothing but a bunch of ramblings and insults? You insist on tripling down on the fail. You continue to insist that I don't understand my own argument, yet after asking you several times to prove me wrong, show me evidence, tell me what you think it means, you still can't do any of those things. This just proves that you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about and you are completely full of shit and make baseless claims that cannot be backed up. I've provided my evidence and I understand my argument quite clearly. What you have demonstrated here, Turdrun is that you clearly don't understand the argument and because of that, you continue ti fling insults at me because like I said, you have nothing. Anyway, as promised, I'm done arguing with you. Let me know when you actually have something.

I only take that stance with teh Stoopids who feel they neeeeeed an AR-15 for "home defense."

Or for rising up against the Gubmint. Because, yanno, Cliven Bundy was a Hero and a Troo Murican.

So your principles are inconsistent and depend upon someone's political beliefs? Wow.

Wow, you totally misunderstood all of that, didn't ya? What a maroon.

No, my message board writing style is geared to the comprehension level of the reader. Your failure to understand that is illustrative.

Is it even possible to talk down to Feeble Farmer's level?

I'm not in the mood for arguing with you.

That's good, because I wasn't arguing.

No, not if your IQ is above 80.

"I realise that your paintball experience trumps my actual firearms training, but I'd still run away." - Man Afraid Of His Shoes (in reference to Tererun's mad skillz)
Hell, don't feel bad. Tererun's paintball experience trumps my actual combat experience! Tererun knows exactly how people with real guns behave under pressure.
As for Garamet - why does she constantly bust on the AR-15 platform? Is that weapons the talking point/symbolism for "gun nuts" going overboard? It's actually a very versatile weapon and because of it's super low recoil it's easy for small framed people (even children) and not gifted shooters like myself to master. It's not a weapon to prove you are bad-ass or macho because 10 year old girls hunt deer with them here in Georgia.

It's just that it's designed to look badass. And it seems to be the Weapon of Choice for sashaying around the toy department in Walmart. As long as you're white.

You realize that the rifle's appearance was designed long before it was available for civilians to purchase, yes?

Seriously...........where the fuck does she come up with this shit? Is this what a lifetime of liberalism does to the brain or what? And BTW I think they only look badass to people who don't see or have any experience with real guns. Now a 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun (like the model 1100 for example) shooting deer slugs is badass. But of course that looks like farmer Joe's shotgun so it's a sentimental favorite. Fucking unreal. As for sashaying around Walmart can somebody please explain to her (I can't get through the liberal force field) that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by criminals using guns other than the "badass" military looking weapons? You know, like pistols, .22 rimfire squirrel guns, pump shotguns, etc? Oh shit I forgot! First you would have to explain all these differences - never mind.

Man, you bit, and you bit hard. "Ooooh, let me 'splain to the non-gun people the difference between this gun and that one and that one and that one and..."

Jeez, do you guys ever think of anything else?

Well the (in)famous AK-47 (actually the AKM but everyone says AK-47) is well known for being simple and reliable enough that a 12 year old child soldier in Sierre Leone can use it effectively in combat.

But it still has a hugely bad ass image nevertheless.

I wonder what the most difficult semi automatic "assault type" rifle is to learn to use?

Well when you generalize about shit you know nothing about and marginalize anything you don't think is valid, all it does is show your own arrogance and intolerance.
I'm not saying you should be a technical expert. If I kept calling an orange a banana or sometimes a plum because I don't give a shit about the difference, wouldn't you tend to suspect I don't really know what I'm talking about?

Heck, it's appearance was designed when it was a .308 caliber, the AR-10 designed by Fairchild Aircraft.



They wanted a lightweight rifle suitable for aircrews, and the problem with full power 30 caliber guns is muzzle climb from the recoil. So unlike almost every other rifle in service, they kept the stock completely in line with the barrel and moved the sights way, way up. Since the stock was now too high to grip, they had to use a separate pistol grip. Then the Army said that it wanted a much smaller, high-velocity cartridge because soldiers with an AK-47 could carry more ammunition and the Russian cartridge outperformed the various .30 caliber carbines we used in lieu of a full battle cartridge. So the AR-10 was turned into the AR-15 (M-16), which actually didn't need to be shaped like an AR-10 anymore because .223 hardly kicks, but what the heck.

Probably none - if they are too complicated and expensive to maintain and shoot nobody would want them. I've shot an AK in Poland - about like a .308 regular deer hunting rifle in recoil. I didn't shoot it enough to really test the accuracy. And wouldn't you know I retired from the Army right when everyone was getting all the short versions of the M-16 (maybe an M-4 I think they are called)
so I didn't get to shoot one! My son (who is small) loves them and said when he went somewhere and he had to shoot the M-16 it was a real bitch. Last week at the indoor shooting range the guy next to us & his girlfriend were shooting some kind of short looking AR style weapon - very nice I must say.

Cool! BTW are Fairchild the company that made the GAU-8 30 mil for the A-10? The name sounds familiar.