If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   If you're the head of the NRA, and want to quote a Supreme Court justice in your rebuttal to Obama's inaugural address, try not to quote one who ruled that Second Amendment rights should be limited   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 56
    More: Fail, Wayne LaPierre, President Obama, NRA, supreme courts, assault weapons ban, school psychologists, technical assistance, resource officers  
•       •       •

1347 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jan 2013 at 8:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 08:54:12 AM
Fact checkers have a liberal bias.
 
2013-01-23 08:56:00 AM
Would anybody mind if I used my Second Amendment rights that Wayne LaPierre thinks are unlimited to drop a Hellfire on his ass?
 
2013-01-23 08:59:31 AM
Of course, Hugo Black also thought secular humanism is a religion, so what does he know?
 
2013-01-23 08:59:33 AM
LaPierre told the crowd the president "doesn't understand you. He doesn't agree with the freedoms you cherish. If the only way he can force you to give 'em up is through scorn and ridicule, he's more than willing to do it -- even as he claims the moral high ground."

LaPierre quoted former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, a one-time Democratic congressman who served on the high court in the 1930s. "Justice Black understood the danger of self-appointed arbiters of what freedom really means, like President Obama," LaPierre said.


So he was warning us of the dangers of LaPierre.
 
2013-01-23 08:59:37 AM
There's "rebuttals' for inaugural addresses now? That's like attacking the darkness with magic missile!
 
2013-01-23 09:01:13 AM

Serious Black: Would anybody mind if I used my Second Amendment rights that Wayne LaPierre thinks are unlimited to drop a Hellfire on his ass?


I don't think anybody would lose much sleep over it.


Oh, also.
 
2013-01-23 09:02:37 AM
Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.
 
2013-01-23 09:03:24 AM
Bang bang!
 
2013-01-23 09:04:09 AM

Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.


Ayup, AR-15s with 30 round magazines were in common use... in 1939.  Got it.
 
2013-01-23 09:05:52 AM
The fun fact in regards to Miller is the justices erred in declaring a short shotgun unfit for military use.
 
2013-01-23 09:07:36 AM

dbirchall: Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.

Ayup, AR-15s with 30 round magazines were in common use... in 1939.  Got it.


That is such an incredibly dumb comment.
 
2013-01-23 09:09:41 AM

Mrbogey: dbirchall: Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.

Ayup, AR-15s with 30 round magazines were in common use... in 1939.  Got it.

That is such an incredibly dumb comment.


Good, glad to see you read it as it was intended.
 
2013-01-23 09:09:49 AM

Mrbogey: The fun fact in regards to Miller is the justices erred in declaring a short shotgun unfit for military use.


I gotta say, I haven't seen a single person carrying around a short-barreled shotgun since I've been over here. It's all AK-47s and M4s.
 
2013-01-23 09:10:28 AM
Wayne LaPierre believes in no limitations to gun rights?

Anyone got a citation?
 
2013-01-23 09:10:49 AM
Is anybody surprised that Wayne LaPierre is not down at the local Kroger's in his bathrobe riding a scooter muttering about the jews and screaming at the occasional cloud.
 
2013-01-23 09:11:08 AM

Mrbogey: dbirchall: Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.

Ayup, AR-15s with 30 round magazines were in common use... in 1939.  Got it.

That is such an incredibly dumb comment.


Yup, everyone knows that WWII was won with the trusty, fully-auto M-16.
 
2013-01-23 09:11:47 AM

s2s2s2: Wayne LaPierre believes in no limitations to gun rights?

Anyone got a citation?


Actually, wouldn't the NRA opposing Arizona's new gun rights law be a citation to the contrary?
 
2013-01-23 09:12:32 AM

dbirchall: Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.

Ayup, AR-15s with 30 round magazines were in common use... in 1939.  Got it.


Not an AR, but Tommy guns certainly were common enough with a 30 rd magazine

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-23 09:13:38 AM

dbirchall: Actually, wouldn't the NRA opposing Arizona's new gun rights law be a citation to the contrary?


From that article: "Also, keep in mind that the NRA's objection to the legislation is not that it is unconstitutional or that it might make it easier for criminals to acquire weapons, but that it would hurt firearms dealers."
 
2013-01-23 09:15:16 AM

dbirchall: s2s2s2: Wayne LaPierre believes in no limitations to gun rights?

Anyone got a citation?

Actually, wouldn't the NRA opposing Arizona's new gun rights law be a citation to the contrary?


Nullification is a separate issue from gun rights.
 
2013-01-23 09:16:34 AM

Walt_Jizzney: There's "rebuttals' for inaugural addresses now?


More like "rebutthurtals" - amirite?

/will shut-up now
 
2013-01-23 09:16:45 AM
I guess I'm one Fark would call a gun nut these days, but damn if LaPIerre doesn't need a punch in the face and jimmy.
 
2013-01-23 09:17:07 AM

dbirchall: s2s2s2: Wayne LaPierre believes in no limitations to gun rights?

Anyone got a citation?

Actually, wouldn't the NRA opposing Arizona's new gun rights law be a citation to the contrary?


The article says that's due to not wanting to put gun sellers in legal peril. Plus,"I like the message he's trying to send." is the quote from the NRA rep.
 
2013-01-23 09:17:45 AM

dbirchall: Mrbogey: dbirchall: Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.

Ayup, AR-15s with 30 round magazines were in common use... in 1939.  Got it.

That is such an incredibly dumb comment.

Good, glad to see you read it as it was intended.


Ok, this is one of the few times Poe's Law got me. I didn't realize you were mocking the dummies who think USSC rulings can't ever be cited for future issues. Kind of like how the internet didn't exist prior to the 1960s yet there are first amendment rulings that apply to it.

Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.


I think guns should be at least as regulated as cars... meaning we can own anything we want as long as we don't operate it on public lands.

Yea, just kidding about that. Just like mocking that stupid argument.
 
2013-01-23 09:18:12 AM

s2s2s2: Wayne LaPierre believes in no limitations to gun rights?

Anyone got a citation?


It may not be Wayne LaPierre, but many other people really do take "shall not be infringed" to mean that I can bear a machine gun with depleted uranium ammunition if I desire.
 
2013-01-23 09:19:07 AM
Everybody believes in some level of gun control, and the NRA would serve its members better by participating in the conversation about how much is appropriate, rather than pretending what we've got now is exactly perfect and screaming NO to any discussion of proposed changes.
 
2013-01-23 09:20:41 AM

dbirchall: Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.

Ayup, AR-15s with 30 round magazines were in common use... in 1939.  Got it.


Wow, that is a farking retarded rebuttal. The saddest thing is I can see you patting yourself on the back like you actually zinged everyone on that one. farking sad.
 
2013-01-23 09:23:59 AM
wayne la pierre is an extremist who is destroying the long-term viability of the NRA. and i'm ok with this.
 
2013-01-23 09:26:40 AM

Serious Black: It may not be Wayne LaPierre, but many other people really do take "shall not be infringed" to mean that I can bear a machine gun with depleted uranium ammunition if I desire.


Anyone worried more about "assssault weapons!" more than handguns is a rube and should be thrown out of the debate.

If you want to end the mass death, you go after pistols.
 
2013-01-23 09:27:22 AM
"Words have meanings, Mr. President, and those meanings are absolute," LaPierre said. "And when absolutes are abandoned for principles, the U.S. Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone's graffitti."

Yes, abandon your principles everyone and hold to absolutes set by others that can never be assailed!
 
2013-01-23 09:27:29 AM
FTFA:
But Black is a problematic hero for LaPierre. In 1939, Black and fellow Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously in a landmark gun control case, United States v. Miller, that the Second Amendment does not protect blanket access for citizens to any type of firearm.

Relying on Miller as the be-all, end-all of what guns should be protected is *VERY* problematic, because only one side argued in front of the court, the government side. Miller was *NOT* represented. The government argued the collective rights theory, and the court unanimously rejected that theory. Had they accepted it, the court would have dismissed the case for lack of standing, as Miller was not a militia, nor was he actively engaged in one. The court merely held that while the Second Amendment protects gun ownership, it doesn't necessarily mean that Miller could own a short-barreled shotgun without paying the appropriate NFA tax on it.

That's all it says. It's a very, very narrow ruling, and it was a stacked deck because only one side got to argue before the court.

Here is the whole sordid story about US v. Miller. It's actually an interesting law review article, but it is pre-Heller, so keep that in mind when reading it.
 
2013-01-23 09:28:15 AM

manimal2878: dbirchall: Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.

Ayup, AR-15s with 30 round magazines were in common use... in 1939.  Got it.

Wow, that is a farking retarded rebuttal. The saddest thing is I can see you patting yourself on the back like you actually zinged everyone on that one. farking sad.


There's a game I play when I see a dumb comment. I click the "Smartest" link to see how high it goes. The higher on the list the greater the odds the thread will be a derpfest.
 
2013-01-23 09:34:35 AM

Mrbogey: There's a game I play when I see a dumb comment. I click the "Smartest" link to see how high it goes. The higher on the list the greater the odds the thread will be a derpfest.


My God, you're right.

Hell, I even provide an example in this thread of an automatic gun that used a 30rd magazine common in military use at the time. It's like people want to be ignorant.
 
2013-01-23 09:34:55 AM

Mrbogey: manimal2878: dbirchall: Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.

Ayup, AR-15s with 30 round magazines were in common use... in 1939.  Got it.

Wow, that is a farking retarded rebuttal. The saddest thing is I can see you patting yourself on the back like you actually zinged everyone on that one. farking sad.

There's a game I play when I see a dumb comment. I click the "Smartest" link to see how high it goes. The higher on the list the greater the odds the thread will be a derpfest.


I see now that was trolled, but I will keep that game in mind. I see that comment was the top of the "smartest" list at the moment.
 
2013-01-23 09:37:28 AM
Only liberals are allowed to selectively quote people whom they hate with a passion and disagree with on everything but this one mined quote, so the NRA will have to stop doing that I suppose.
 
2013-01-23 09:41:41 AM

dbirchall: Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.

Ayup, AR-15s with 30 round magazines were in common use... in 1939.  Got it.


From US v. Miller:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
...
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.


Also, the Miller court merely remanded the case back to the lower court for further fact-finding:

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.


In other words, the court said "Hey, we weren't presented with evidence of whether the item in question is protected because it has some sort of militia use (the militia being being the people who were expected to bring their own privately owned guns), so show us some evidence".

I should think that the semi-automatic version of the current military service rifle, of which there are several million in circulation, would qualify as "protected" under the Miller ruling, because it is plainly self-evident that it would have some military use. Likewise, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (or even 7!) have obvious military utility, and thus would also be protected under Miller, perhaps even more clearly than the AR-15, because the same exact magazines fit in both the AR-15 and the M-4/M-16.
 
2013-01-23 09:48:37 AM

Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.


Of course, that was before we had nukes and drones. We all have a right to unlimited access to nukes and drones. I can't wait to get mine.
 
2013-01-23 09:49:26 AM

dittybopper: dbirchall: Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.

Ayup, AR-15s with 30 round magazines were in common use... in 1939.  Got it.

From US v. Miller:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
...
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.


Also, the Miller court merely remanded the case back to the lower court for further fact-finding:

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

In other words, the court said "Hey, we weren't presented with evidence of whether the item in question is protected because it has some sort of militia use (the militia being being the people who were expected to bring their own privately owned guns), so show us some evidence".

I ...

Obama should call out the militia tomorrow and see how many NRA members show up for service.
 
2013-01-23 09:51:42 AM
"Words have meanings, Mr. President, and those meanings are absolute," LaPierre said.

LaPierre continued, "Words like gay and computer and awful. These words have never, ever meant something other than how people use and understand them today. Ever."
 
2013-01-23 09:52:00 AM

Mrbogey: There's a game I play when I see a dumb comment. I click the "Smartest" link to see how high it goes. The higher on the list the greater the odds the thread will be a derpfest.


The words "NRA," "Supreme Court" and "Obama" in the headline weren't clues? ;)
 
2013-01-23 10:02:14 AM
But Black is a problematic hero for LaPierre. In 1939, Black and fellow Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously in a landmark gun control case, United States v. Miller, that the Second Amendment does not protect blanket access for citizens to any type of firearm.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[3] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.[4]


Wouldn't that technically be a lack of Due Process?
 
2013-01-23 10:03:35 AM

Kome: "Words have meanings, Mr. President, and those meanings are absolute," LaPierre said.

LaPierre continued, "Words like gay and computer and awful. These words have never, ever meant something other than how people use and understand them today. Ever."


Or... "well-regulated".
 
2013-01-23 10:05:55 AM

dbirchall: Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.

Ayup, AR-15s with 30 round magazines were in common use... in 1939.  Got it.


I'd gladly trade every 2 ARs I own for one M1918.

Deal?
 
2013-01-23 10:12:49 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Obama should call out the militia tomorrow and see how many NRA members show up for service.


If it's for a valid reason, I'd show up, even if it's Obama calling it out.

The unorganized militia isn't obligated to show up, though, if they don't feel they are being called up for a valid reason. From a purely military standpoint, this is a bug in the system, but from the perspective of free nation, it's actually a feature.

Thing is, though, having now shown that he wants to take military-style guns away from everyone, if President Obama were to attempt such a thing it would be seen as a ploy to disarm the militia (ie., you round up the people with the military style guns by calling up the militia, and then you can take the guns from them through the use of military force).

It would have to be something like a "China invades the US" or "Megavolcano under Yellowstone erupts" for him to be taken seriously.

Then, too, not everyone who shows up will necessarily have a weapon, either: I might show up with a bolt action deer rifle if called out*, having sold all of my "social rifles" a while ago, but I'd also likely bring some ham radios for communications. And yes, hams and the military practice communicating with each other, through programs like MARS and through the annual Military/Amateur Crossband Communications Test.

*It is in a military caliber, .30'06 Springfield, and it has a decent scope, and it will shoot an honest 1 MOA with target ammo, so with a bit of practice, it could be used as a short-to-medium range sniper rifle (say, out to 600 yards). It's even got an evil black plastic stock.
 
2013-01-23 10:15:50 AM

Giltric: But Black is a problematic hero for LaPierre. In 1939, Black and fellow Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously in a landmark gun control case, United States v. Miller, that the Second Amendment does not protect blanket access for citizens to any type of firearm.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[3] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.[4]


Wouldn't that technically be a lack of Due Process?


Perhaps not: What the Miller court did was punt the case back down to the lower court for further fact-finding, which never happened.
 
2013-01-23 10:32:58 AM

dittybopper: Philip Francis Queeg: Obama should call out the militia tomorrow and see how many NRA members show up for service.

If it's for a valid reason, I'd show up, even if it's Obama calling it out.

The unorganized militia isn't obligated to show up, though, if they don't feel they are being called up for a valid reason. From a purely military standpoint, this is a bug in the system, but from the perspective of free nation, it's actually a feature.

Thing is, though, having now shown that he wants to take military-style guns away from everyone, if President Obama were to attempt such a thing it would be seen as a ploy to disarm the militia (ie., you round up the people with the military style guns by calling up the militia, and then you can take the guns from them through the use of military force).

It would have to be something like a "China invades the US" or "Megavolcano under Yellowstone erupts" for him to be taken seriously.

Then, too, not everyone who shows up will necessarily have a weapon, either: I might show up with a bolt action deer rifle if called out*, having sold all of my "social rifles" a while ago, but I'd also likely bring some ham radios for communications. And yes, hams and the military practice communicating with each other, through programs like MARS and through the annual Military/Amateur Crossband Communications Test.

*It is in a military caliber, .30'06 Springfield, and it has a decent scope, and it will shoot an honest 1 MOA with target ammo, so with a bit of practice, it could be used as a short-to-medium range sniper rifle (say, out to 600 yards). It's even got an evil black plastic stock.


Wow, what a patriot you are. You'd show up even if it was the currently elected President calling out the militia.
 
2013-01-23 11:07:21 AM
To be fair, Wayne LaPierre is clinically retarded.
 
2013-01-23 11:24:12 AM

dittybopper: If it's for a valid reason, I'd show up, even if it's Obama calling it out.


how about to help relieve soldiers stationed in afganistan and iraq for some r&r? iirc, it was bad enough they were sending in police officers at one point.

From a purely military standpoint, this is a bug in the system, but from the perspective of free nation, it's actually a feature.

nice, game the system.

It would have to be something like a "China invades the US" or "Megavolcano under Yellowstone erupts" for him to be taken seriously.

when did the national guard disband? red dawn was just a movie and everyone died at the end.


manimal2878: Wow, that is a farking retarded rebuttal. The saddest thing is I can see you patting yourself on the back like you actually zinged everyone on that one. farking sad.


i did not know a ww2 thompson was comparable to an ar-15. i'm surprised the military would have switched if modern firearms hasn't made any advancements in the past 60 years.


Click Click D'oh: Go ahead, quote United States V Miller as a cause for gun restrictions. United States V Miller said that the class of firearms most protected by the Constitution were those in common use with a military application. You know, AR-15s with 30 round magazines.


of course the supreme court has no history or over turning any previous decisions.
 
2013-01-23 11:38:03 AM

not5am: did not know a ww2 thompson was comparable to an ar-15. i'm surprised the military would have switched if modern firearms hasn't made any advancements in the past 60 years.


They switched to the m16 because the recoil was more manageable.
 
2013-01-23 11:44:46 AM

not5am: i did not know a ww2 thompson was comparable to an ar-15. i'm surprised the military would have switched if modern firearms hasn't made any advancements in the past 60 years.


It is comparable in the context of arms in use by the military during a given time frame. Yes there are advancements in technology.

Did you have a point you were trying to make?
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report