[paraclete]

Don't you just love a society where machine guns and cannons are legal and yet you cannot own an armed jet fighter

[smoothy]

dont you just love a society where machine guns and cannons are legal and yet you cannot own an armed jet fighter

Who says you can't own a jet fighter... there are several wealthy pilots that do own ex- airforce fighter jets... from Russian, to British... etc

They aren't cheap... but if you have the money... why not. Heck, John Travolta has a Boeing 727 parked in his driveway... seriously, he does.He lives in a development where every house has direct access to private runway.

http://www.military-heat.com/27/mili...vilian-market/

[excon]

Hello again,

I LOVE Horsey..

[smoothy]

You need to have a talk with that brain damaged tw@t named Barara Fienstein, because she's on the record as saying that's EXACTLY what she wants to do.

I'd link her rant... but the corporate censors are blocking access form this computer... I couldn't do it until I get home.

[talaniman]

Here's one from Fox News,

The Immoral Minority: Senator Feinstein is forced to school Ted Cruz on the Constitution. Update!

This excerpt was taken from Fox Nation, so of course they left off the part where Senator Feinstien made a very important point about what these new gun laws actually do. She continued on to say:

"Incidentally this does not prohibit, you use the word 'prohibit,' it 'exempts' 2.271 weapons. Isn't that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don't think so!"

[speechlesstx]

Here's one from Fox News,

The Immoral Minority: Senator Feinstein is forced to school Ted Cruz on the Constitution. Update!

How dare he patronize Ms Feinstein.

Colorado's new law to limit magazine sizes makes virtually all magazines illegal because most are readily convertible. Washington gave cops the power to inspect your guns without a warrant. Don't Democrats think before passing laws?

[smoothy]

Here's one from Fox News,

The Immoral Minority: Senator Feinstein is forced to school Ted Cruz on the Constitution. Update!

Cruz made her look like the post menopausal fool everyone knows she is... the witch couldn't even answer the question asked because she didn't have the brainpower to understand it... she's really a legend in her own mind.

[talaniman]

You righties don't get it, but we are going that way any way. Kicking and screaming is par for the course, that's the way you have always been, ever since they freed the slaves and democrats were republican.

We ain't going back.

[speechlesstx]

Here's one from Fox News,

The Immoral Minority: Senator Feinstein is forced to school Ted Cruz on the Constitution. Update!

That's odd, but your source that whined about Fox leaving part of the clip out left this part out:



Cruz is right of course but who cares? He shouldn't be lecturing DiFi on the constitution, she's been around forever and why should Congress concern themselves with the constitutionality of the laws they write anyway?

Maybe because they don't have a free pass to do whatever they want and they swore to uphold the constitution?

[speechlesstx]

You righties don't get it, but we are going that way any way. Kicking and screaming is par for the course, thats the way you have always been, ever since they freed the slaves and democrats were republican.

We ain't going back.

Geez you guys sure have forgotten your behavior during the Bush years. I've never seen so much kicking, screaming, whining and pouting in my life.

It is good to see you guys at least admitting you don't give a rat's patoot about us. Perhaps if you didn't insist on dragging us down with you we might not have to dig our heels in so deep.

[talaniman]

EVERYBODY hollered and whined about Bush! Didn't you? He damn near ran the Rangers out of Texas!

[smoothy]

EVERYBODY hollered and whined about Bush! Didn't you? He damn near ran the Rangers out of Texas!

I hear the price of rice is up in China.

[Tuttyd]

That's odd, but your source that whined about Fox leaving part of the clip out left this part out:



Cruz is right of course but who cares? He shouldn't be lecturing DiFi on the constitution, she's been around forever and why should Congress concern themselves with the constitutionality of the laws they write anyway?

Maybe because they don't have a free pass to do whatever they want and they swore to uphold the constitution?

I think Cruz has left out an important bit.

Towards the end of his response:

"I would suggest that 4 million weapons qualifies as, 'in common use'. So under the the terms of Heller they cannot be constitutionally prohibited.

Cruz might be right if this is what SCOTUS said, but the court didn't say this.
What SCOTUS actually said was," in common use at the time".

The Heller decision invokes the claim that the right to bear arms rests with the individual and does not have to be connect to service with a militia.

With this in mind the court ruled that a total ban on handguns was unconstitutional because of its conflict with the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment.

The court added an additional statement regarding the wider possibility of the types of weapons that might be used for self-defense. In addressing this issue SCOTUS draws on the Miller decision to reinforce the claim that handguns are constitutional for the purpose of self-defense.

Handguns are constitutional for self-defense because they can be regarded as being,"in common use at the time" for this purpose.

It would be a matter of constitutional debate as to whether such things as machine guns, or similar weapons would be considered necessary for self-defense. Nonetheless, Cruz is wrong if he is giving trying to give the impression that, Heller gives the blessing for all types of weapons to be used in self-defense.

[tomder55]

It would be a matter of constitutional debate as to whether such things as machine guns, or similar weapons would be considered necessary for self-defense. Nonetheless, Cruz is wrong if he is giving trying to give the impression that, Heller gives the blessing for all types of weapons to be used in self-defense.

Yes obviously it is debatable... Machine gun restrictions have been in effect for years without much debate. But the other side exploits the difference between machine guns and semi-automatic weapons because they look alike . Once the Clintoon ban was lifted ,the NY Slimes wrote that semi-automatic guns were often “the guns of choice for many hunters, target shooters and would-be home defenders”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/bu...ted=print&_r=0

The Heller decision reinforced the already standing 'United States v. Miller' that was confirmed in 1939 . Clearly with the growth of the sales of the AR-15 type weapons( the best-selling firearm in the United States) ,it is hard to dispute that they are not common. They are in fact the weapon of choice for law abiding citizens.

[Tuttyd]

yes obviously it is debatable ... Machine gun restrictions have been in effect for years without much debate. But the other side exploits the difference between machine guns and semi-automatic weapons because they look alike . Once the Clintoon ban was lifted ,the NY Slimes wrote that semi-automatic guns were often “the guns of choice for many hunters, target shooters and would-be home defenders”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/bu...ted=print&_r=0

The Heller decision reinforced the already standing 'United States v. Miller' that was confirmed in 1939 . Clearly with the growth of the sales of the AR-15 type weapons( the best-selling firearm in the United States) ,it is hard to dispute that they are not common. They are in fact the weapon of choice for law abiding citizens.

I'm not actually disputing what you are saying here. What I am saying is

Yes, I would agree that such weapons would be lawful for self-defense.

You do have a right to own a gun not connect to a militia.

You do have a constitutional right to these things, but how that that right goes will be determined by way of future court cases. The Heller decision is limited in it's scope.

The issue I am raising is that Heller is not to be interpreted in a way Cruz makes out. He portrays Heller as some sort of justification for the Second Amendment in toto. In fact sees it as being of the same type as the First Amendment.

[tomder55]

The weakness in his argument was the absolutism. Franken-Feinstein should've easily deflected it on Constitutional grounds... There are limited restrictions on the other 2 amendments he cited . She instead got defensive (probably because as a lefty ,she thinks the constitution is this pliable "living breathing " ,"not worth the parchment it's written on " document instead of the law of the land). Was her best counter to his constitutional point ."I've seen dead children" ? She should consider another profession.

[speechlesstx]

I disagree, I don't believe he's arguing that at all, he's arguing within the confines of Heller. I doubt seriously you would hear him say yes, we have the unconditional right to carry a bazooka. The context is the discussion of an assault weapons ban, not shoulder fired rocket launchers.

Is the AR-15 "in common use at the time"? Yes. Is it especially "dangerous and unusual"? No more than many other semi-automatic weapons not in line to be banned.

The absurdity is this grandstanding about bazookas and cannons, not defending the legality of an AR-15.

[paraclete]

Speech no one can deny you have a right to own weapons, what you don't have is the right to blow each other away because that is not part of the common good

[speechlesstx]

speech no one can deny you have a right to own weapons, what you don't have is the right to blow each other away because that is not part of the common good

I guess you'll have to point out where anyone is trying to legalize mass murder.

[Tuttyd]

I disagree, I don't believe he's arguing that at all, he's arguing within the confines of Heller. I doubt seriously you would hear him say yes, we have the unconditional right to carry a bazooka. The context is the discussion of an assault weapons ban, not shoulder fired rocket launchers.

Is the AR-15 "in common use at the time"? Yes. Is it especially "dangerous and unusual"? No more than many other semi-automatic weapons not in line to be banned.

The absurdity is this grandstanding about bazookas and cannons, not defending the legality of an AR-15.

Bazookas have already been decided upon. AR-15 are probably legal under Heller. What I am saying is that if Cruz wants to defend the legitimacy of AR-15 then it can be done so by claiming it as a weapon that is currently acceptable for the purposes of self-defense.

What I am also saying is that Heller doesn't extend much beyond this. In other words, Cruz cannot use Heller as a means of defeating larger gun laws and regulations in the same way as one would try to defeat restrictions associated with the First Amendment. Despite what Cruz thinks, the First amendment is not of the same type as the Second Amendment.

It is not inconsistent with Heller to say that owning a gun of any type can and does come with regulations and restrictions.