The Second Amendment is not just about target shooting or hunting. The Second Amendment is not about need. The Second Amendment does not grant or confer a Right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is a written recognition that all human beings are naturally born with the obligation and the duty to utilize man made tools to defend and protect themselves, their loved ones and their country. The Second Amendment guarantees that the Right shall not be infringed.
I know this will be hard to comprehend, but try anyway
The National Firearms Act of 1934 - Was not enacted to prevent law abiding citizens from owning military firearms. The purpose of the Act was to require the taxation through registration of a certain class of firearms used by GANGSTERS. (Damn it must of hurt reading that)
Too many Metrosexual Dopes have been misquoting US v. Miller for too long.
1. Miller was charged with violation of the NFA - transportation of an UNTAXED short barreled shotgun.
2. Millers attorney Gutensohn challenged the constitutionality of the NFA in that it usurped the Police Powers of the State and it violated the Second Amendment. (As will be shown Gutensohn erred in not specifying exactly why the NFA violated the 2nd Amendment.)
3. Judge Ragon only ruled it (the Act) unconstitutional on the merits cited by Gutensohn and dismissed the charges against Miller. (As will be shown Ragon erred in not issuing a Not Guilty/Guilty verdict)
4. Prosecutor Barry appealed Ragons "unconstitutional ruling" to SCOTUS.
5. SCOTUS heard the Constitutional Appeal and made two points;
- A) That a law requiring the taxation through registration of certain firearms used primarily by GANGSTERS does not usurp the Police Powers of the State and,
- B) as to the Second Amendment we have not been asked to decide whether a sawed off shotgun IS or IS NOT an implement of the Militia and you have not told us that it HAS or HAS NOT any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, because of that we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. (Gutensohn's error ref: #2 above)
7. Miller passed away before Judge Ragon could carry out the instructions handed down to him by SCOTUS.
This next part is for all of you illiterate fools that have;
- a) never read Miller for yourselves and/or,
- b) been relying Girlyman interpretations by Metrosexuals more stupid than you are,
- c) and/or the Public School of your youth employed an incompetent Political Science/History Teacher.
For most of you Metrosexuals I am betting all of the above.
SCOTUS never said that the Right to own military firearms WAS NOT an individual one.
Miller's side was not represented when SCOTUS heard arguments, if it had it is likely that Gutensohn would have convinced SCOTUS that a short barreled shotgun was in fact an instrument of the militia and there would not be the Metrosexual controversy we have today. (The U.S.government purchased thirty thousand short-barrel shotguns for the armed forces in World War I.)
Only the prosecution was there to present their side.
Despite Miller's side not being heard SCOTUS in their final brief went out of their way to note that the possession of firearms suitable for military service IS PROTECTED by the Second Amendment as an individual Right;
"Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments....
....shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm,
....provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges....
....men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Far too long unAmerican Boneheads heads have been wrongly referring to Miller as a precedent for the government to control and/or ban any and all firearms. (Oh thats gonna leave a mark)
Listen up you dumbass Gumby claymation characters;
The inference by SCOTUS is if a short barreled shotgun is an instrument of the Militia then the Lower Court should find Miller not guilty this time and don't bother us with this bullshit again. (Ragons error ref: #3 & #5B above)
SCOTUS, in Miller, ONLY decided that taxation through registration of firearms primarily of the type used by Gangsters was Constitutional.
Get this through your dense F/Emasculated skulls;
NO WHERE IN ANY OF THE IMPORTANT ENACTMENTS HAS THERE EVER BEEN ENACTED A REQUIREMENT THAT THOSE PRIVATELY PURCHASED FIREARMS BE STORED IN A CENTRAL ARMORY.
What part of CONSTANTLY means where ever they went at all times don't you Airheads understand?
What part of IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME don't you boneheads understand?
Allow me to Clarify
In Fact "common use at the time" illustrates what visionaries the Founding Fathers really were.
They understood and had seen technological improvements in the production of firearms. They knew that further advancements would be made. To that end they wrote laws that would NOT HAVE TO BE CHANGED every time a better firearm was developed. the "common use at the time" requirement transcends time. (To deny this is to imply that the Founding Fathers were short sighted imbeciles)
- In the late 1700's - Common use at the time = Brown Bess Flintlock (The finest "assault weapon" of its day and practically every home had at least one of these "liberated" from the British rifles)
- It the early part of the 2000's - Common use at the time = M-16/AK-47/P-90/MP-5
Ouch, that's gonna leave a scar on your psyche isn't it??
The plain and simple truth is that men were required by law to purchase their own personal firearms that were to be of the same type as used by the Militia at that time.
IT WAS DEEMED TO BE NOT ONLY AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, IT IS WAS A LAW TO BE OBEYED.
SCOTUS understood that so thoroughly that they were compelled to include those statutory cites in their brief on Miller.
Wail, gnash your teeth and rend your clothing all you want but those historical references by SCOTUS prove conclusively that the Right is an individual one AND requires possession of Military type arms. (Bleeding from the ears yet?)
- SCOTUS was asked and agreed to determine if a law requiring taxation by registration of firearms used by Gangsters was Constitutional. (They did that ref: #5A above)
- SCOTUS was also asked to determine that the Second Amendment DID NOT apply to a short barrel shotgun. (This they COULD NOT do as it was not presented to them that a 'Sawed off shotgun IS or IS NOT an an instrument of the Militia/Military and they were NOT asked to make that determination. ref: #5B above)
The short barreled shotgun was used in World War I (prior to the Act that taxed it through registration in 1934 ref: #6 above) as an instrument of the Militia/Military. (It still is today)
I don't expect any of you head in the sand Girlyman idiots to understand this;
SCOTUS did not decide that the Second Amendment was a collective one and that only the Police and the Military could own Firearms suitable for use by the Militia. In fact the SCOTUS brief hints that THE ONLY firearms individuals have the Right to keep and bear are those that are instruments of the militia. (Damn that one had to hurt)
Sorry Boneheads but Miller is not the defining decision that prevents private citizens from owning Militia type firearms.
The lack of a decision in Miller by SCOTUS is the defining determination that the Second Amendment guarantees the Right of the People to keep and bear arm SUITABLE for Military Service.
Note; I have written on this in the past and was fortunate to discuss much of the above with Alan Gura (lawyer representing Heller in US v. Heller) back in October. Alan told me at that time that a number of Ivy league legal scholars that previously held opinions that the Second Amendment was a collective Right, have been re-evaluating their analysis and are now of the opinion that is an individual one.
What part of R I G H T do you not understand?
Neither a Government Entity nor the Agents of that Entity pursuant to their duties have Rights. They only have Powers to act in their official capacity granted to them by the People they represent.
Rights can ONLY be possessed and exercised by Individuals.
The Founding Fathers understood this implicitly when they authored the first ten amendments to the Constitution. (The Bill of Rights) Simply by virtue of birth humans beings possessed natural unalienable rights.
Do you understand that?
To claim their intention in the Bill of Rights was that only the 1st and 3rd through the 10th applied to individuals while the 2nd refers to the government is about as asinine as one can get. (To deny this is to imply that the Founding Fathers were short sighted imbeciles)
PLEASE TELL ME THAT YOU ARE NOT SO LACKING IN INTELLIGENCE THAT YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THAT! PLEASE!
Maybe if you Girlymen hadn't spent so much time smoking pot, snorting coke, drinking and instead of skipping classes paid more attention to your Public School educators I would not have to to rub your nose in it. (Like a bad puppy in a pile shit)
But alas the bottom line is you don't have a clue.
Metrosexuals as a rule will always accept as Gospel the agenda driven Nanny State "womb to the tomb" rhetoric puked up by other Girlymen with an irrational fear of inanimate objects.
Speaking of inanimate objects tell me;
- When was the last time Your kids teddy Bear lifted his leg and pissed on the corner of the couch?
- When was the last time your computer turned its self on (pun intended) and surfed for Porn? (Yea I know you got your wife/girlfriend convinced it happens, but ...)
- When was the last time your motor vehicle took its self for a 500 mile joy ride? (Knight Rider was only a television show. KITT was not real)
Imagining these things while your stoned doesn't count.
Some of you people are so mentally deficient and uneducated that you just don't realize how mentally deficient and uneducated you really are.