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

Ugh. I can't believe I didn't hear about this. I would have gladly driven down there to participate. I think I will on the 15th.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
A militia in those days frequently used cannons, so the definition of "arms" should reasonably include cannons.

Why should it be reasonable? Why didn't they say "the right to use armaments"? To bear is to hold, arms was referred as guns, it was the militias responsibility to have a musket that they would bring if they were mustered. They would not be required to bring a cannon...lol

No one refers a cannon as arms...no one, but you.

Hmmm..so does that whole law abiding thing go out the door...since they are breaking the law.

These people are breaking the law....do LEOs have the right to shoot them?

Or are there certain laws than can be broken because you have decided it isn't a good one...why can't everyone do that?

2nd Amendment is idiotic.

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

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

You misquoted the 2nd amendment.
The point of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to be able to defend themselves from the state/government militia. That is why they worded it the way they did.

"A well regulated Militia,(Formal government military) being necessary to the security of a free State, (The free state being the government of, for and by the people) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Knowing that governments, by their very nature, tend to want more, and more control over the people they have been set up to govern.

originally posted by: DrJunk
2nd Amendment is idiotic.

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

It does not need to be interpreted. It is quite clear. The "interpretation" is an excuse used by politicians who do not want to follow it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: macman

Last I checked, in the U.S. it is illegal to own a fully operational tank without some SERIOUS permits and paperwork.

Same goes for the minigun.

I can't own an F-22 Raptor, nor the missiles to arm it.

I can't own a naval Railgun. (Booo!)

There's a lot of weapons U.S. citizens cannot legally own.

We are talking "bear arms" not all weapons in general. You can't bear arms a jet, or missile, or nuke, or cannon...geez

The Framers referred to Guns as arms, just as we call them firearms or with pistols we say small arms, but an arm is typically a weapon that one person can carry and fire. A cannon, as example, was classified as artillery not arms.

The militia act of 1791 (still in the US code BTW), sponsored by the same gentleman who sponsored the 2nd Amendment, defines the arms as the arms as the average soldier. Select fire M-4, M240g, etc. would fit that bill.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Hmmm..so does that whole law abiding thing go out the door...since they are breaking the law.

These people are breaking the law....do LEOs have the right to shoot them?

Or are there certain laws than can be broken because you have decided it isn't a good one...why can't everyone do that?

Um no, you don't just go around executing people who have broken a law... If anything you arrest them. There is a system in place called "due process".

In this instance there could be a lot of reasons why the police did not attempt to arrest them. Maybe they agreed with them. Mkst cops have guns in their home and don't want their rights infringed upon. Or maybe they were afraid of what would happen. I don't know. But no, the police do not get to hunt them down and shoot them like Nazi Germany...

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk
2nd Amendment is idiotic.

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

It does not need to be interpreted. It is quite clear. The "interpretation" is an excuse used by politicians who do not want to follow it.

That's crap.

You get 100 people, and you will get 100 interpretations.

Lets get something with clear language, even the word "arm" needs to be interpreted, and YOU are doing the interpreting...

a reply to: stormbringer1701

I got this from your link:

In response, the city argued that federal law doesn't apply to the plaintiffs' claims against city officials "because the right to keep and bear arms has never been recognized as a fundamental individual right."

All I gotta say is wow, I guess they never read the Constitution....

I've said it before, it doesn't matter of your a fan of guns or our right to own them. You lose that right and everyone in this country will lose more rights that the constitution granted us. He said it, you don't pick and choose the rights you keep and the ones you allow to be taken from you. Look as this fully armed group carrying many AR-15 (the evil black gun) and no violence or looting. no fighting no death. If they gathered and didn't come armed to the pits with firearms....most likely a different outcome. KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT AT BAY PEOPLE, THEY ARE HERE TO SERVE US.

originally posted by: Hr2burn
I've said it before, it doesn't matter of your a fan of guns or our right to own them. You lose that right and everyone in this country will lose more rights that the constitution granted us. He said it, you don't pick and choose the rights you keep and the ones you allow to be taken from you. Look as this fully armed group carrying many AR-15 (the evil black gun) and no violence or looting. no fighting no death. If they gathered and didn't come armed to the pits with firearms....most likely a different outcome. KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT AT BAY PEOPLE, THEY ARE HERE TO SERVE US.

Does it matter that more people are killed by hammers each year than assault rifles, but it seems we spend most of the debate with them. If I was going to outlaw a type of gun I would outlaw any gun that cost less than 1000 bucks...hehe

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Does it matter that more people are killed by hammers each year than assault rifles, but it seems we spend most of the debate with them. If I was going to outlaw a type of gun I would outlaw any gun that cost less than 1000 bucks...hehe

I would say that less people are killed with assault rifles than are killed with hammers because assault rifle restrictions are working to curb that sort of violence.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Because they will know where the lawful weapons are. Guess what comes next? Confiscation.

There is an extremely conspicuous, very suspicious, seriously incriminating

LACK OF MSM COVERAGE OF THIS EVENT.

Anyone suppose why that might be?

originally posted by: DrJunk
I would say that less people are killed with assault rifles than are killed with hammers because assault rifle restrictions are working to curb that sort of violence.

I can buy 1000 tomorrow of either, so what is this restriction you speak of?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: macman

But there are limits. I can't legally own an operational Abrams M1 Main Battle Tank. Nor can I legally own a tactical nuclear weapon launcher system like the Davy Crockett. I can't own a GAUSE 17/A Minigun. I could continue on and on.

Well it's true that the founders intended individual served weapons. the term "arms" does not include crew served weapons. this meaning jelled sometime shortly after the revolutionary war was over though because the continental army's first cannon were lent to them by wealthy landowners who had them.

the truth though is you can own anything short of a nuke with the proper license certifications and federal fees. you can own for example a fully automatic weapon fora federal class three license fee. i think its about 200 dollars per year. in fact for the right amount of money you can be a licensed arms dealer and have functional cannon mortars and other weapons systems. but in practical terms; most people cannot meet the requirements or anything more than a fully automatic weapon.
ordinance systems require safety compliance most people cannot meet. you cannot store mortar rounds in your closet in urban areas or rural for,that matter. you would need an isolated secured certified ordinance bunker, training certifications verifying you can safely store,handle and operate them away from other people and on and on.

the thing is this does ensure safety to the maximum extent possible but it also ensures only rich people can have such things. It also means that the function of the right to bear arms is compromised since the govt controls who can have them. and it also means there are a lot of reluctant arms dealers and death merchants selling fully automatic weapons and an occasional cannon to maintain thier license.

What a bunch of crap. They are criminals plain and simple. Guns are for losers.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: McChillin

What does Automatic Weapons have to do with anything on this?

The 2nd does not specify, nor limit the US citizens rights to "Bear Arms".

arms are defined as individual serviced weapons generally available to an infantry man but not including ordinance or crew served weapons. it is true that the continental army's initial artillery were on loan from wealthy landowners and ship owners; but somehow the final understanding of the 2nd by the founders them selves did not include them.

originally posted by: CB328
What a bunch of crap. They are criminals plain and simple. Guns are for losers.

And I take it you are not a loser...?