Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.
You can't take it away from us.

Yes we can. You’re not part of a well-regulated militia.

Also. Nothing there about the right to buy ammo.

The US defines Militia in 10 USC Chapter 12 to include organized and unorganized. So the 2nd Amendment intends for individuals (the people) to have arms.

246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no reason for a civilian to own an AR-15, or anything remotely like it.

"Well regulated" means REGULATED.

the militia not the weapons

The weapons too. We can regulate them however we choose. It is our country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.
You can't take it away from us.

What militia are you part of? How is it being regulated?

This is what the 2nd amendment says:
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 is the right of the people, We the people, not the militia, that shall not be infringed.

This is what you want it to say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is clumsy wording that has received bastardized interpretation. A militia is comprised of the people being referenced. Like I said, enjoy your guns now. Compensate for your inadequacies, feel strong, kill something, etc. A future government/court will take care of this as the current generation will not. We are at the apex of gun ownership.

It's extremely clumsy wording. But obviously the Founding Fathers did not anticipate the future lethality of weapons. Neither did they intend for the constitution to be a dead document. It was meant to be adapted to the circumstances of the age.

After Sandy Hook, I pretty much gave up hope for meaningful gun reform. The AR-15 is not a useful gun in most circumstances. Not hunting. Not self-defense. It's fun to shoot targets, it's excellent for mass shootings, and it makes pathetic men feel like manly men.

It should not be on the streets. The 2nd Amendment absolutists tend to be fat men with goatees who think they're Seals or Delta while stuffing themselves with Doritos as they spend most of their day on Facebook. And that's a pretty powerful demographic for Republicans. And Democrats don't want to go there because of their fear of alienating older white people.

Meaningful gun reform is not happening in the foreseeable future.

Anonymous wrote:If “arms” are limited to 1776 flintlocks and cannons, then “freedom of expression” is limited to parchment and quill-pens.

You can delete all your prior posts now, thanks.

NP. Honest question. What is the limit then? Is there even a limit?
Should I be allowed to buy an own an RPG? How about an M2 Browning machine gun?
How about a missile launcher? If not, who decides that I'm not allowed to own it? On what ground?

As an ex infantryman, I think the deadliest of all these weapons is the pump or automatic shotgun. Just point and shoot. And there are millions of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting opinion piece (written by former police officer) about why it's crazy we let civilians buy AR-15s.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

its a civilian firearm . Or can you show us which military uses the AR-15?

That is true.

Moreover the legal standard is: “in common use.” Re-read Heller / McDonald if you doubt that fact.

It would not be factually honest to argue the AR15 is not in common use in the United States in 2023.

Oh still not reading Heller. Scalia said common use at the time of the Founders. Please, if you care so much about 1A, at least read the critical opinion about it.

Anonymous wrote:Your typical deer rifle at .308 is way more powerful than a .223.

Literally the marine basic sniper rifle is very common to use for hunting.
You can buy some wicked assault rifles that fire .308 - you do not hear about them because as they are wickedly powerful they are expensive and so is the ammo for them.

Go fire 100 rounds of a deer rifle in two minutes and post about the experience.

Anonymous wrote:Well of guns were taken away from democrats that would reduce gun homicides by 95%

The average murderer is a white dude in nowhere America who shoots his ex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ARs can’t be banned as they are in “common use” now.

Most popular rifle in the US at this point. Also commonly used for hunting, self defense, etc. Half the people in the us own some sort of firearm.

Using ARs to hunt is for the wimps. No true hunter needs an AR.

because they need a more powerful round than 223 to hunt large animals

Large animals were hunted long before ARs were created. Many gun owners are simply pretending to be macho by owning and using guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.
You can't take it away from us.

What militia are you part of? How is it being regulated?

This is what the 2nd amendment says:
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 is the right of the people, We the people, not the militia, that shall not be infringed.

This is what you want it to say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is clumsy wording that has received bastardized interpretation. A militia is comprised of the people being referenced. Like I said, enjoy your guns now. Compensate for your inadequacies, feel strong, kill something, etc. A future government/court will take care of this as the current generation will not. We are at the apex of gun ownership.

The implication seems to be that the general population must be able to own guns so that the state can muster a well-regulated militia. It a chicken and egg issue.

Anonymous wrote:Your typical deer rifle at .308 is way more powerful than a .223.

Literally the marine basic sniper rifle is very common to use for hunting.
You can buy some wicked assault rifles that fire .308 - you do not hear about them because as they are wickedly powerful they are expensive and so is the ammo for them.

Short of an armored vehicle; nothing is stopping a .308. I have put them through steel targets. I’m not sure if an armored police vehicle could stop a .308 at close range.

I think the issue is a large amount of mass shooters are first time gun buyers and buying it to commit crimes/murder in short order.

I think anyone buying a semi-auto as first time gun owner should be 21 and have some waiting period and actual background check more than the basic atf form.
For buyers who have a concealed carry permit or have purchased other firearms it should be business as usual for simple purchase.

I think if focus on first time buyers- really of any semi auto it is reasonable to have additional vetting and like a 5 day period for local Leo to at least do some basic checking.
If their first gun is an assault rifle like at least Leo could do some mental health records search/domestic violence complaints of former addresses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.
You can't take it away from us.

What militia are you part of? How is it being regulated?

This is what the 2nd amendment says:
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 is the right of the people, We the people, not the militia, that shall not be infringed.

This is what you want it to say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is clumsy wording that has received bastardized interpretation. A militia is comprised of the people being referenced. Like I said, enjoy your guns now. Compensate for your inadequacies, feel strong, kill something, etc. A future government/court will take care of this as the current generation will not. We are at the apex of gun ownership.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.
You can't take it away from us.

What militia are you part of? How is it being regulated?

This is what the 2nd amendment says:
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 is the right of the people, We the people, not the militia, that shall not be infringed.

This is what you want it to say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well of guns were taken away from democrats that would reduce gun homicides by 95%

Anonymous wrote:There is no reason for a civilian to own an AR-15, or anything remotely like it.

"Well regulated" means REGULATED.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with a well regulated militia.
The 2nd amendment never said that only a regulated militia should keep and bear arms.

This is what the 2nd amendment says:
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.

We the people, not the militia.

This is what you want it to say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.