98Z Wrote:Stan, check it out. Perspective. You gotta think outside the box, man. Do you have a CCW? You can carry concealed? I always carry (where legal) this 1911 (below). I also have another pistol with me, where ever I go. Don't carry where you can't legally, all that, got it - I just completely avoid Gun Free Zones whenever I absolutely can. So, two pistols with me. One is the Kimber, the other is a 12.5" Grendel. An the sheeple are none the wiser. Sheeple think I love tennis.

Think outside the box, man. The 2A is YOUR RIGHT. Quit trying to explain it away...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11253[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]11254[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]11255[/ATTACH]

Drillboss Wrote:Again, I hate to jump into some conversations, but I will. 98Z, you probably don't know that much about Stan's perspective. I suspect he knows more about weapons that you or I ever will. However, his current situation limits his choice of defensive weapons to blunt nosed scissors or less.

Stan, I apologize if I went to far with that and if so, I'm happy to delete.

98Z Wrote:You're right - I only know of his perspective based on the mass of information from him in this thread. On the flip-side of that, is my perpsective, as well, which might not be well know either. I'm not sure if he knows more about weapons than you or I ever will. I know I've done over 2 decades militarily, with the bulk of that on the pointy end of the stick. I'm gladly retired from that now, and have the time to challenge ballistics on a routine basis.

So, that can be seen half-empty, or half-full.

montana Wrote:

stanc Wrote:The only need addressed in the 2A is access to weapons for arming the militia. However, that's been rendered somewhat moot, because those state militias that still exist, either are unarmed, or issue required weapons. There is no longer a need for individuals to provide their own weapons; and in fact, modern military forces typically do not permit the use of privately-owned weapons.
If called upon by the State to do battle against its enemies, it is extremely unlikely you will be allowed to bring your own "militia-style, military style" arm.

The State will issue you what weapon(s) it deems appropriate.
The point is, official state militias are also modern military forces. Their rules definitely do apply to civilians who join those militias.

montana Wrote:(Drillboss was inferring what he thought your opinion was on the AR-15. Was he wrong?

Drillboss Wrote:The original question was "Why do you need an AR-15?" The most common answer seems to be "because the Constitution (2nd amendment) gives me the right to defend myself".
I think Stan is correct in saying the 2A doesn't give you that right.

montana Wrote:Excuse me stan but you are doing the side step again. First you state: "However, that's been rendered somewhat moot, because those state militias that still exist, either are unarmed, or issue required weapons." ( You never distinguished the difference between the organized and unorganized militias.) All organized militias are armed today, they are the national guard. Unorganized militia are the people as a whole, "your words not just mine". I would gather there are many armed citizens in every state, so why are they unarmed as you stated in your previous remark?
Then you stateI never disputed that the people as a whole constitute the unorganized militia.)
You didn't believe many state militias still existed, then you state the people as a whole constitute the militia.
Organized and unorganized militias are still the militia.

montana Wrote:Here is why the militia can and has used their personal arms in recent history.

Alaska, as you may be aware, was actually invaded by the Japanese during World War II. U.S. soldiers fought bitterly in the frozen hell of the Aleutians in 1942 and 1943. The Alaska National Guard had already been deployed outside of Alaska at the start of World War II, and understandably, the territorial governor was concerned about the prospect that Japanese troops might land on the Alaska mainland. Consequently, a bit more than 6000 Alaskans, mostly Eskimos and Indians, and some of them women, were called into service as the Alaska Territorial Guard—the unorganized militia. They were unpaid volunteers, armed with obsolete U.S. Army weapons.

Oregon and Maryland were more in the tradition of the Revolutionary militias. In both cases, the unorganized militias were armed with their own weapons, but like the Alaska Territorial Guard, they were unpaid volunteers. Oregon’s Governor Sprague called the unorganized militia into service the day after Pearl Harbor, and asked the federal government for rifles. The obsolete weapons offered—with no ammunition—soon caused the governor to have the militia arm themselves.

98Z Wrote:

stanc Wrote:...one is unlikely to have an assault rifle on one's person when desperately needed.

Stan, check it out. Perspective. You gotta think outside the box, man. Do you have a CCW? You can carry concealed? I always carry (where legal) this 1911 (below). I also have another pistol with me, where ever I go. Don't carry where you can't legally, all that, got it - I just completely avoid Gun Free Zones whenever I absolutely can. So, two pistols with me. One is the Kimber, the other is a 12.5" Grendel. An the sheeple are none the wiser. Sheeple think I love tennis.

Think outside the box, man. The 2A is YOUR RIGHT. Quit trying to explain it away...

Drillboss Wrote:Again, I hate to jump into some conversations, but I will. 98Z, you probably don't know that much about Stan's perspective. I suspect he knows more about weapons than you or I ever will. However, his current situation limits his choice of defensive weapons to blunt nosed scissors or less.

Stan, I apologize if I went too far with that and if so, I'm happy to delete.

gmaxx Wrote:How can you define an assault rifle as either offensive or defensive?

stanc Wrote:However, you have not negated what I said. Very few people are going to carry an AR in hand all day, everywhere they go, no matter how cleverly it's disguised. Surely you know that's true?

stanc Wrote: You have an odd notion of what it means to "side step" an issue. I gave a direct answer to each of your requests, and did not attempt to evade answering.

stanc Wrote:You seem to be a little confused. In the quoted extract from Drillboss' post, he is not addressing my opinion on the AR15.
If what you're asking about is his final comment in that quote, no, he is not wrong. The 2A does not give you the right to defend yourself.

stanc Wrote:- Yes, I was remiss in not specifying whether I was talking about organized or unorganized militias.

stanc Wrote:- I was mistaken about some militias being unarmed. The wiki article on state defense forces shows that some do not currently give firearms training, from which I erroneously inferred :p they are unarmed.

stanc Wrote:- I was also wrong about the people as a whole being the unorganized militia. According to the Militia Act of 1903, the unorganized militia is composed of able-bodied, adult males aged 18-45 who are not members of organized militias. So that means the majority of the adult population (i.e., men over the age of 45, disabled men of any age, and women of any age) are not -- contrary to what has been stated in this thread -- in either the organized or unorganized militias.

stanc Wrote:I wouldn't exactly call three-fourths of a century ago "recent" history, but the examples prove my point: The government provided (or at least offered to provide) weapons.

stanc Wrote:P.S. Just out of curiosity, do you know what were the mentioned "obsolete" weapons?

keystone183 Wrote:I don't even know why we're arguing this, as i'm not sure what the point of your original post was?

stanc Wrote:If you don't remember what I originally posted, please go back and read it again. I'm not going to spend the time rehashing it.

montana Wrote:To sidestep you ''dodge'' a direct answer with a negative response and discredit the question itself. Then you actually answer it LOL. example:

stanc Wrote:You seem to be a little confused. In the quoted extract from Drillboss' post, he is not addressing my opinion on the AR15.
If what you're asking about is his final comment in that quote, no, he is not wrong. The 2A does not give you the right to defend yourself.

montana Wrote:Drillboss was inferring what he thought your opinion was on the AR-15. Was he wrong?

montana Wrote:District of Columbia v. Heller settled the question: do people over 45 still have the right to own arms, if that is what you were insinuating.

montana Wrote:Jefferson’s stipulations take over from here. The militia is all of the people, but not by definition organized by the state or federal government. Hence, the breakup into two defined groups – organized and unorganized.

montana Wrote:I will ask my neighbor who served under Patton, how recent it still is for him.

montana Wrote:The point of this post and the reason we need or want to own the AR-15 rifle.

bj139 Wrote:Here is something I ran across while searching about this topic.

https://www.infowars.com/pennsylvania-police-chief-proposes-2nd-amendment-preservation-ordinance/

In Pennsylvania, the right to defend yourself is guaranteed by the PA 2nd Amendment.

stanc Wrote:Oh, jeez. You said:

Your prefatory statement was wrong. Drillboss was not inferring what he thought my opinion was on the AR15. Noting that your comment was erroneous is hardly side stepping.

stanc Wrote:The original question was "Why do you need an AR-15?" The most common answer seems to be "because the Constitution (2nd amendment) gives me the right to defend myself".
I think Stan is correct in saying the 2A doesn't give you that right.

stanc Wrote:I insinuated nothing.

stanc Wrote:Jefferson's "stipulations" do not have the force of law. The Militia Act of 1903 defines the militia (both organized and unorganized) as being only able-bodied, adult males 18-45, not "all of the people."

stanc Wrote:LOL.

stanc Wrote:"We" don't need to own an AR15. "We" want to own an AR15. Don't conflate the two.

bj139 Wrote:Stan, Haven't you been saying the right only applies if you belong to a militia?

montana Wrote:I quote Drillboss:

Drillboss Wrote:The original question was "Why do you need an AR-15?" The most common answer seems to be "because the Constitution (2nd amendment) gives me the right to defend myself".
I think Stan is correct in saying the 2A doesn't give you that right.

Erroneous you say!

montana Wrote:

stanc Wrote:Jefferson's "stipulations" do not have the force of law. The Militia Act of 1903 defines the militia (both organized and unorganized) as being only able-bodied, adult males 18-45, not "all of the people."

If true then why didn't the District of Columbia v. Heller decision limit the age on firearm ownership?