"Why do you need an AR15?"

[stanc]

The only purpose noted in the 2nd Amendment is state security.

Not sure i agree on this. That is an inference. And you could make many more, based on the vague language, no?

It is not an inference. Nor is the language vague. It clearly and specifically states that a militia is necessary for state security.

[montana]

The only purpose noted in the 2nd Amendment is state security.

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. The law states it has to be repealed before it is null and void.
I kind of got the impression it meant to preserve "secure" a "free state", not state security. It also is a right, not a gesture for citizens. But I guess it depends on what is,is LOL. Yes governments make laws until the other side with a bigger stick says differently. The world is ruled by force, plain and simple.

[stanc]

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.
I kind of got the impression it meant to preserve a "free state", not state security.

That's what you infer. That's not what it says.

Yes governments make laws until the other side with a bigger stick says differently.

At which point the "other side" becomes the government, so my point still stands: The government defines legal rights and privileges.

The world is ruled by force, plain and simple.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree.

[keystone183]

That's what you infer. That's not what it says.

Your inferences are better than all other inferences?

[montana]

That's what you infer. That's not what it says.


.

Like I said before, it depends on what is is. Now the side with the bigger stick will determine which meaning is used, yours or mine.

[stanc]

To quote the flipflopper in chief.....

Eh? I'm not Donald Trump.

...assault rifles are offensive weapons.

Wrong.

LOL. Not familiar with the history and development of assault rifles, are you? Shoot, even the name (assault rifle) denotes an offensive weapon.

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

Wrong.

LOL again. How many folks go around with a loaded AR15 slung over their shoulders?

[montana]

That's what you infer. That's not what it says.


At which point the "other side" becomes the government, so my point still stands: The government defines legal rights and privileges.

Yes and it is the side with the bigger stick.

[stanc]

Your inferences are better than all other inferences?

I'm not making any inferences. I'm just reading what is written.

[keystone183]

Eh? I'm not Donald Trump.


LOL. Not familiar with the history and development of assault rifles, are you? Shoot, even the name (assault rifle) denotes an offensive weapon.


LOL again. How many folks go around with a loaded AR15 slung over their shoulders?

I know you love arguing and love semantics, but i don't believe you believe these arguments. I need not know(though i do) the history of a weapon to know of its effectiveness. You need not be obtuse as we're on the same side.

And besides the open carry nuts looking for youtube hits, no one. But how many have one by the bed?

[keystone183]

I'm not making any inferences. I'm just reading what is written.

Well then i'll tell you that you're reading incorrectly. The 2nd was clearly not meant for security of the state, but security from its tyranny. Or perhaps that is what you meant and you have problems expressing clearly?

[stanc]

Like I said before, it depends on what is is.

No, it doesn't. It depends upon whether you go by what you think it means, or what it actually says.

[montana]

No, it doesn't. It depends upon whether you go by what you think it means, or what it actually says.

Right back at you!

[stanc]

I know you love arguing and love semantics, but i don't believe you believe these arguments.

1. I enjoy stimulating discussion. Arguments, not so much.
2. I don't do semantics.
3. I don't operate on belief.

I need not know(though i do) the history of a weapon to know of its effectiveness.

:confused: Weapon effectiveness has not been a subject of discussion.

And besides the open carry nuts looking for youtube hits, no one. But how many have one by the bed?

Very few, I'd wager. And even for those who do have an AR15 at bedside, that's fine for the hours one is in bed, but completely useless the rest of the day when one is at work, running errands, etc.

[montana]

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

The 2nd Amend is about preserving a big stick for the citizens, so the security of a free state remains a free state. With out a big stick all citizens have are opinions. Not much use against a state that has both.

[stanc]

I'm not making any inferences. I'm just reading what is written.

Well then i'll tell you that you're reading incorrectly. The 2nd was clearly not meant for security of the state, but security from its tyranny.

Interesting that you think what it clearly says is "clearly not" what it means.

[montana]

Interesting that you think what it clearly says is "clearly not" what it means.

We only see what we want to see; we only hear what we want to hear. Our belief system is just like a mirror that only shows us what we believe. Don Miguel Ruiz

[stanc]

We only see what we want to see; we only hear what we want to hear. Our belief system is just like a mirror that only shows us what we believe. Don Miguel Ruiz

I don't operate on belief.

[keystone183]

:confused: Weapon effectiveness has not been a subject of discussion.

How many times do you think an assault weapon has been used in defense? Please answer this straight up.

Very few, I'd wager. And even for those who do have an AR15 at bedside, that's fine for the hours one is in bed, but completely useless the rest of the day when one is at work, running errands, etc.

You know where i'm going to go with this i'm guessing? Do i really have to type it out?

[keystone183]

Interesting that you think what it clearly says is "clearly not" what it means.

I don't think it says anything CLEARLY. That is the point. That you think it does, especially in light of the myriad of writings of the time, is interesting.

[montana]

So you operate on disbelief and don't believe in your own opinion or you do believe in your own opinion and do operate on belief. Like I said before, it depends on what is is.
I'm done here........ Believe it!