ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Make a case why this can't work in our county

This is a republic not a democracy. If you don't know the difference you might want to look it up, and then you'll see what you desire will never happen, but there are plenty of other democracy that might welcome you

Lol is this dude serious. Oh wait I think you said you grew up in Alaska, enough said.

Our government is both a democracy and a republic, maybe you should take sometime reading.[/QUOTE]

Yes this dude is serious. Are you?
Are you the guy who suggested having to rent firearms from the government?

We are a republic period, I guess civics wasn't available when you went to school, but you should be old enough to do seeyour own research now

Here's a start:

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"
 
Last edited:
the interesting thing about Miller is that part of the case was incorrect in that the claim was made that shotguns were not a valid military weapon and yet were in great use by the US troops in WW1. Look up trench sweeper

and

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewt...sid=cc2acd13ba51102200679526ac6a2cc1&start=15

The Miller case is interesting. It would imply the full auto weapons should be allowed because they are of the type used by the military. No one believes that should happend .
 
Last edited:
The Miller case is interesting. It would imply the full auto weapons should be allowed because they are of the type used by the military. No one believes that should happend .
very few quality militaries have hand held automatic weapons. AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon but any soldier with a brain keeps it on semi auto.

The more I research miller I understand why the SCOTUS revisited that issue - miller was a very flawed decision.

For there to be a militia they must have weapons IN THEIR HOME.
Therefore the right to individual possession of a firearm was UNDERSTOOD if not formally stated. Since the militia consists of all able bodied men 15-60 or however each state decreed, that was vital. One reason I believe that no one thought they HAD to make that clear.
 
very few quality militaries have hand held automatic weapons. AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon but any soldier with a brain keeps it on semi auto.

The more I research miller I understand why the SCOTUS revisited that issue - miller was a very flawed decision.

For there to be a militia they must have weapons IN THEIR HOME.
Therefore the right to individual possession of a firearm was UNDERSTOOD if not formally stated. Since the militia consists of all able bodied men 15-60 or however each state decreed, that was vital. One reason I believe that no one thought they HAD to make that clear.

I guess but almost all fire stitch, three shots per pull, which is still auto, albeit not full auto.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT