"Why do you need an AR15?"

[Drillboss]

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]

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.

[98Z]

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.

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.

[Drillboss]

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.

That's fair enough.

[stanc]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Now, in regard to your other comments:

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

- 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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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

[stanc]

...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...

Heh, heh. I truly applaud your inventiveness. Very well done!

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]

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.

OMG, no. Please don't delete it. Your remark is (sadly) true, but I found it absolutely hilarious. ROFLMAO.

[stanc]

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

For any who have this question, I suggest you watch 1:00-1:35 in the video below.

[video=youtube;7DYeYkJkqgs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DYeYkJkqgs[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DYeYkJkqgs

[keystone183]

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?

I'm sure that is true. But what is the point? We don't know what that number is? Or what the number who rely on one for home defense is?

I don't even know why we're arguing this, as i'm not sure what the point of your original post was? Were you trying to argue one doesn't need an ar for defensive purposes? Or was it merely argument for the sake of argument?:confused:

[montana]

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.

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

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.

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

I will except remiss.

- 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.

Agreed, you were mistaken.

- 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.

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.
It corresponds to the ideas of Washington it terms of its age requirements and the exemption of certain officials. While the militia ages differ slightly, it essentially is comprised of all individuals residing in these United States who are or have declared intention to become citizens, and who are considered youthful. At the onset of middle age around age 45, the requirement of service no longer applies. As well, this includes women but only those in the National Guard.
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.

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.

I will ask my neighbor who served under Patton, how recent it still is for him. Yes, the government did try to provide arms, "but when they couldn't" the people were expected to arm themselves with their personal arms. The point of this post and the reason we need or want to own the AR-15 rifle.

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

No I don't, but I did see a story on this many years ago where the men were carrying lever action Winchesters and a variety of bolt action rifles. I wish I could find that story again.

[bj139]

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

https://www.infowars.com/pennsylvania-po...ordinance/

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

[bj139]

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

[stanc]

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

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.

[keystone183]

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.

I don't have to remember. I went back and re-read it several times. Still don't know. My assumption is it was just to be contrarian, as i can't find a logical or reasonable point to it.

[stanc]

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

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.

Oh, jeez. You said:

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

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.

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.

I insinuated nothing.

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.

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."

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

LOL.

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

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

[stanc]

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

https://www.infowars.com/pennsylvania-po...ordinance/

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

Interesting. Why has no one brought that up before?
Oh wait, they did. In posts 68, 104, 114, and 118.

[montana]

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.

I quote Drillboss:

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!

I insinuated nothing.

That is why I asked.

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?

LOL.

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

Yes, I guess a person could make an argument for a need or want to own a better firearm for militia duty.

[stanc]

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

I don't recall ever saying that.

[keystone183]

This discussion is going no where!!!:p Stan, are you a nihilist lawyer? That is what i'm going with. Only logical conclusion!

[montana]

FUSHTA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m34GUn0QqA

[stanc]

I quote Drillboss:

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!

Yes indeed. As the above quote shows, your statement ("Drillboss was inferring what he thought your opinion was on the AR-15.") is erroneous.

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?

Perhaps because the 2A says "the people" have the RKBA, not "only militia members" have said right?