280+ guns. TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY GUNS! Who the fuck needs 280+ guns?!
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
112 points (95.9% liked)
News
26372 readers
3881 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A group of 280 soldiers probably would, not that it's relevant.
I think it's very relevant to any questions of the Second Amendment.
As if one guy with 280 guns isn't proof enough of the absurdity of reading "well regulated milita" out of the equation.
To me, the “well-regulated milita” became a moot point in the 19th century when all of the state militias were unified into the National Guard and state defense forces. The term was never intended to include private militias, as evidenced by the fact that in 1886, the Supreme Court concluded that militias are not constitutionally protected and that states have the right to ban them altogether (Presser v Illinois). So any state can choose to have their own militia or they can choose to prohibit them all together. It clearly shows that militias are under the control of the states.
The 2nd amendment never once mentions private gun ownership, so it seems more like the right to bear arms was always intended to be a right of the individual states, not a right of private citizens. I have no clue how we got to the point that we are currently in with 2A somehow protecting private ownership of assault rifles other than to blame corporate lobbying and institutional corruption.
The 2nd amendment never once mentions private gun ownership, so it seems more like the right to bear arms was always intended to be a right of the individual states, not a right of private citizens.
My take is that it was to enable the militia, especially minutemen, to, as the text says, "keep and bear arms" in their homes and not during actual battles.
I agree that that is how it was intended, so in turn, the amendment provides for National guardsmen and state militias to be permitted to keep guns rather than all private citizens.
It says the right of the people, not right of the militia.
What people? If you don’t think it’s referring to the people in a militia, you are completely ignoring the first part of the sentence. From congress.gov:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn’t say all people. Considering the entire sentence, “people” implies nothing more than the people of a well regulated militia.
Also, Madison was very clear that the right to bear arms was for the militia in the federalist papers.
It seems you have your mind made up, but you're incorrect. The punctuation does a lot of work there separating the prefatory clause. The people are the same people covered in the first amendment.
How? It's simple. Inducing fear and selling 'protection' is good money, and the NRA is here for it.
That’s why, but how did they manage to pervert the amendment and get away with it? Before you answer, I understand it was ultimately the result of corruption, but why does no one talk about it from this specific angle? It seems so crystal clear to me that private gun ownership was never protected by the second amendment.
Could arm a company of soldiers plus side arms for the officers
It's even crazier when it's 200+ guns on Long Island, where general gun culture used to be next to invisible. Growing up there I had not seen a gun store until I moved to Florida, I'm sure they were there, just not all over or obvious, most people there used to not own guns, outside of all of the cops, it's suburbia with little shitty areas and rustic areas sprinkled in between.
this Court should order the return of the seized property to a person designated by Rex Heuermann, individual or licensed gun dealer, who may legally possess the items
Not him personally. Seems fair. Cops keep stuff in evidence far too long. Especially in the case of valuables, they'll often send them to auction, or "auction" where their buddies get to "buy" them for cheap. And even if they return them to the owner, they've often been kept in shitty conditions, becoming moldy or rusty or whatever.
I think you need to read between the lines here. The designated person will be someone who will sell the guns for him and give him the money. I don't like police forfeiture auctions either, but I don't want this motherfucker making a dime.
I don't want this motherfucker making a dime
Why not? Has he been convicted of a crime in a court of law, judged by a jury of his peers?
(And for the record, I too am certain he's guilty, but let's keep the above in mind.)
What he has been convicted of and what I think he deserves are vastly different things.
You're right. I don't think the state will give them up. There are any number of civil enforcement avenues it may proceed with to seize title to the guns, insofar as they are valuable. Writs of attachment, civil asset forfeiture, civil restitution. Son of Sam Laws, too.
Son of Sam laws mostly deal with profiting from the crime you're imprisoned for, there's no evidence (that I've seen) that this guy used any of the guns in his serial murders.
That being said, he's on trial for murder, and doesn't get to have guns. In the extremely unlikely event he's found innocent, those guns will be returned, but until then, no. They stay in police custody.
Before they are returned, they will be melted down accidentally on purpose. Oops. Sorry.
What is it with these people?
George Zimmerman sells gun used to kill Trayvon Martin on auction site
Yeah, no.
I, too, wish to treat the law like it doesn't exist. However, there appear to be consequences.
Tell him to choke on Uncle Sam's dead dick.
Sure, you can have them back. Bend over.