Massachusetts: AR-15s are "not within the Constitutional right to bear arms".

interesting. so creating clip restrictions will only work on people who follow the law, but psycho mass shooters and other criminals can just ignore it i guess.


tenor.gif
 
I think it’s clear the “militia” referred to in the 2nd amendment is now the group of firearm owning citizens in our country today. People own to protect themselves, their family and neighbors, and their freedoms even if it means using those arms against our own government. They possess guns because they want they ability to protect themselves and their rights in the situations when police or the military would or could not be. It’s a standing militia.

And the 2nd amendment clearly states this militia is not just to be regulated, but “well regulated”. As in to a quite high degree of regulation. So yeah, Massachusetts is correct as far as the thread title is concerned. AR-15s are not a constitutional right IMO. The denial of access to certain weapons falls under that regulation the founding fathers put in the very opening of 2nd.

No.

There wasn't supposed to be a standing army, the founders didn't want one as it is expensive and has major potential for abuse/oppression like what was seen by England. The idea that the founders wanted to limit what the militia (essentially the US military) could own while fighting off threats foreign or domestic is pretty ridiculous. Private citizens owned warships, rotating cylinder cannons, other cannons and wide variety of other arms.

Well regulated meant trained and maintained back then. People (specifically white men 18-45, later changed to all able bodied men 18-54) were to be the regular militia (regular militia was for defense of nation against foreign threats) and they were to be trained, given rank, etc and the militia was to be well maintained so it could be an effective fighting force as it is necessary to the security of a free State. Each state were to have their own militia but in times of need the president could take command of them.

There is also the Irregular militia. This was for anyone to join or be in. It was for local threats(Indians for example) and most importantly as a last line of defense against tyranny.
 
do militias have these types of compunds like in the hitman game?

 
I think they fear they will be disarmed by warped progressive libs because of these mass shooters. They are not using assault rifles by the way.

A well regulated militia. What you're posting is most certainly your progressive logic. You just said small arms are not a right.

<Prem973>

I guess we will see which of us is right as far as what fear is more prevalent in the coming years as these policies get voted on.

Some are using assault rifles. Were we not just discussing the Vegas shooting where FIFTY EIGHT people died from an AR?

Never said smalls arms aren’t a right. I implied the 2nd amendment doesn’t make any specific caliber of rifle automatically a right. Is the basic single shot .22 rifle going to stay legal most places, sure. Someday will a single shot .22 handgun printed in a 3D printer that’s plastic and can pass through metal detectors and doesn’t have any sort of serial number going to be legal to possess everywhere? Probably not, because ownership is not an outright constitutional right that comes without regulation. That’s not progressive logic, that’s just how things are.

If you want to argue whether the term militia applies to the current American citizens who are armed for self defense I’m more interested in that than your rants on liberals.
 
why? its pretty clearly unconstitutional, as per Heller V District of Columbia.


We need to upgrade from a past constitution that is outdated imo. I find it sad people to reference everything back to it without updating to current times.
 
We need to upgrade from a past constitution that is outdated imo. I find it sad people to reference everything back to it without updating to current times.

ok........ what wrong with Ar-15s?
 
I guess we will see which of us is right as far as what fear is more prevalent in the coming years as these policies get voted on.

Some are using assault rifles. Were we not just discussing the Vegas shooting where FIFTY EIGHT people died from an AR?

Never said smalls arms aren’t a right. I implied the 2nd amendment doesn’t make any specific caliber of rifle automatically a right. Is the basic single shot .22 rifle going to stay legal most places, sure. Someday will a single shot .22 handgun printed in a 3D printer that’s plastic and can pass through metal detectors and doesn’t have any sort of serial number going to be legal to possess everywhere? Probably not, because ownership is not an outright constitutional right that comes without regulation. That’s not progressive logic, that’s just how things are.

If you want to argue whether the term militia applies to the current American citizens who are armed for self defense I’m more interested in that than your rants on liberals.

People that own firearms are definitely more worried about being disarmed. Why do you think sales sometimes increase after these events?

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It's just a semi auto rife.

"Never said smalls arms aren’t a right. I implied the 2nd amendment doesn’t make any specific caliber of rifle automatically a right."

You are saying that small arms are not a right here.
 
People that own firearms are definitely more worried about being disarmed. Why do you think sales sometimes increase after these events?

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It's just a semi auto rife.

"Never said smalls arms aren’t a right. I implied the 2nd amendment doesn’t make any specific caliber of rifle automatically a right."

You are saying that small arms are not a right here.

Its not assault rifle because it takes a pause between multiple shots.. who gives a fu@@. It's still close to being assault weapon lol.
 
Also I don't get this "military weapon" argument. The second was literally made to defend the right of the citizens to hold military weapons of the day.
Exactly. The 2nd amendment was written to give people the right to fight against the military
 
Its not assault rifle because it takes a pause between multiple shots.. who gives a fu@@. It's still close to being assault weapon lol.

No it's not close. They usually don't have a receiver that allows you to install an auto sear.

highpocket-AR-and-full-pocket-M16.jpg
 
Last edited:
No it's not close. They don't have barrels that can withstand full automatic fire and usually don't have a receiver that allows you to install an auto sear.

highpocket-AR-and-full-pocket-M16.jpg

Semi-auto sounds close to automatic but OK. It's their words not mine.
 
And the 2nd amendment clearly states this militia is not just to be regulated, but “well regulated”. As in to a quite high degree of regulation. So yeah, Massachusetts is correct as far as the thread title is concerned.

Since you're basing your view on a flawed understanding of what "well-regulated" means, you'll be changing that view after reading here what SCOTUS said?

"The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[168] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.""

So if anything the government should be helping the people (i.e. those with the right to keep and bear arms) with weapons and training, not cockblocking their ability to be effective by enacting prohibitions. Having inferior small arms and little experience with them is the opposite of well-regulated.
 
Back
Top