"Why do you need an AR15?"

[stanc]

Unfortunately for those three, the homeowner hadn't talked to stanc.....

Indeed. However, assault rifles are offensive weapons. And one is unlikely to have an assault rifle on one's person when desperately needed.

Reading comprehension. I said, "unlikely to have on one's person." Not "never will have accessible."

[montana]

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 prohibit the use of privately-owned weapons.



Precisely. And the only type of firearm practical for "RIGHT NOW!" accessibility on a 24-hour, wherever-you-are basis is a pistol or revolver.

Whether it is a moot point "in your opinion" or not, the 2nd Amend is still law. Citizens are the militia, " modern military forces are a standing army" so what is the point of modern military forces prohibiting privately owned firearms ? Their rules do not apply to civilians.

This is getting ridiculous. Later!

[stanc]

Whether it is a moot point "in your opinion" or not, the 2nd Amend is still law. Citizens are the militia, " modern military forces are a standing army" so what is the point of modern military forces prohibiting privately owned firearms ? Their rules do not apply to civilians.

The point is, official state militias are also modern military forces. Their rules definitely do apply to civilians who join those militias.

[NugginFutz]

[Drillboss]

Maybe it's just me, but it looks like about 5 pages of this thread have been devoted to proposing things Stan didn't say, and then Stan pointing out he didn't say that.

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. Laws that have been passed by Congress and upheld by courts do. In 1994, Congress passed an assault weapons ban and I believe it was upheld in court. Thankfully, the law expired on a sunset provision. How many elections were key to that law not being extended? How many more election cycles will be necessary to see a similar law passed? If passed by Congress and signed by the president, such a bill will become the law of the land and we will all change from being law abiding gun owners to potential convicted felons.

Hopefully then, our cases will go to the Supreme Court to have our inalienable right reinstated. But what if Justice Scalia had passed away a couple years earlier? I suspect there would have been a justice much closer to Ginsberg than to Gorsuch sitting on the bench and ruling on that case, and we would then remain in federal prison, inalienable rights notwithstanding.

I have to say that a forum such as this (or Facebook, emails, or text messages) is a really crappy place to have a meaningful, philosophical discussion. I for one, would love the opportunity to meet Stan and have a real conversation with him. But in the meantime, we need to make our views known to our Senators and representatives and pay attention to upcoming elections.

[bj139]

Stanc you have said many times to read the 2nd Amendment exactly.
Nowhere does it say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[keystone183]

Reading comprehension. I said, "unlikely to have on one's person." Not "never will have accessible."

Memory recall. You said, ar's are offensive weapons. Perhaps I've just been misunderstanding the whole time and you meant that they offend you?

[keystone183]

Maybe it's just me, but it looks like about 5 pages of this thread have been devoted to proposing things Stan didn't say, and then Stan pointing out he didn't say that.

Most of the thread has been Stan unsuccessfully defending what he said on the first page!

[Drillboss]

Most of the thread has been Stan unsuccessfully defending what he said on the first page!

I read it again and it all looks accurate. Stating that assault rifles are offensive rather than defensive is arguable, but his follow up is also accurate.

[stanc]

Stanc you have said many times to read the 2nd Amendment exactly.
Nowhere does it say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

:confused: I never said it did.

[jonny rotton]

did anyone point out that the declaration of independence affirms that certain rights are given to us by our creator and not government?? we are born with certain rights. the bill of rights was just confirming some of those. yes, some rights are god given like self defense.

[stanc]

Reading comprehension. I said, "unlikely to have on one's person." Not "never will have accessible."

Memory recall. You said, ar's are offensive weapons. Perhaps I've just been misunderstanding the whole time and you meant that they offend you?

I recall it just fine. But, apparently you don't remember that you quoted more than one sentence of mine (repeated below, to refresh your memory).

Indeed. However, assault rifles are offensive weapons. And one is unlikely to have an assault rifle on one's person when desperately needed.

I figured you were commenting on the last sentence. For future reference, it would help if you'd either quote only the sentence you're responding to, or at least highlight it if you're quoting an entire line.

And yes, I said assault rifles are offensive weapons. I also acknowledged in another post that most, if not all, weapons can be used for either offense or defense.

[stanc]

did anyone point out that the declaration of independence affirms that certain rights are given to us by our creator and not government?? we are born with certain rights. the bill of rights was just confirming some of those. yes, some rights are god given like self defense.

Yes, it has been noted.

The flaw with that point is nobody can cite any document provably written by "our Creator" wherein she/he/it delineates what, if any, rights we have been endowed with by her/him/it.

The only "right" that demonstrably exists in nature is that of might. Living beings have the "right" to do, that which they have the power to do.

[montana]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[11] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[12][13]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[13] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[14][15] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments.[16] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".

Re-read the supreme court cases and show me where the AR-15, "a rifle commonly used today and for over 50 years" is not protected. Show me the proof American citizens are not part of the militia with protected individual gun rights. Please show me the historical documents, beliefs and opinions of the people who contributed and wrote the 2nd Amend, counters what I have been saying.

[stanc]

Re-read the supreme court cases and show me where the AR-15, "a rifle commonly used today and for over 50 years" is not protected.

:confused: I never said it is not protected. As worded, the 2A covers all weapons, up to and including nukes.

[montana]

:confused: I never said it is not protected. As worded, the 2A covers all weapons, up to and including nukes.

Nice side step to my questions stan LOL.
Printz v. United States (1997) (concurring opinion of Thomas)
Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."
The 2nd Amend debate is far from being settled in the courts.

[stanc]

Nice side step to my questions stan LOL.

What "side step"? That was a direct answer to the quoted request.

As to your other two "show me" requests, I didn't have time to address them in my last post, because I was called to dinner.

I probably shouldn't bother to reply to them, since most of my questions have been ignored, but I'm a nice guy, so here goes:

Show me the proof American citizens are not part of the militia with protected individual gun rights. Please show me the historical documents, beliefs and opinions of the people who contributed and wrote the 2nd Amend, counters what I have been saying.

I never disputed that the people as a whole constitute the unorganized militia, and I never said "the historical documents, beliefs and opinions of the people who contributed and wrote the 2nd Amend" counters what you have been saying.

[montana]

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 approate.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

What was the Oregon militia’s objective? As the Oregon State Archives explains, officials expected that in the event of a Japanese invasion of the coast, the militia would “rush to control all roads leading to the coast, would attack and harass the invaders, delaying the invading activity until such time as fully equipped regular army forces could reach the point and take over." They would then engage in guerilla warfare tactics against “parachute and air-borne troops.” The objective was to delay and harass Japanese troops until U.S. Army units could be brought into position. Governor Sprague explained the value of these units: “One thing made clear in this war is the value of guerrilla fighting; and our local fighters, familiar with the terrain, can be of great value in repelling the enemy.”

While many of these groups were formally members of something called the Oregon State Guard (a militia, not part of the Oregon National Guard), there were a number of independent militia groups as well, such as the Tillamook Guerillas, and southeast Portland’s Bushwhackers. Oregon officials made some effort to bring these independent companies under some level of state supervision.

At the end of 1942, there were more than 8000 members of these various militias.

[98Z]

Indeed. However, assault rifles are offensive weapons. And 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...

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

[Drillboss]

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 approate.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

What was the Oregon militia’s objective? As the Oregon State Archives explains, officials expected that in the event of a Japanese invasion of the coast, the militia would “rush to control all roads leading to the coast, would attack and harass the invaders, delaying the invading activity until such time as fully equipped regular army forces could reach the point and take over." They would then engage in guerilla warfare tactics against “parachute and air-borne troops.” The objective was to delay and harass Japanese troops until U.S. Army units could be brought into position. Governor Sprague explained the value of these units: “One thing made clear in this war is the value of guerrilla fighting; and our local fighters, familiar with the terrain, can be of great value in repelling the enemy.”

While many of these groups were formally members of something called the Oregon State Guard (a militia, not part of the Oregon National Guard), there were a number of independent militia groups as well, such as the Tillamook Guerillas, and southeast Portland’s Bushwhackers. Oregon officials made some effort to bring these independent companies under some level of state supervision.

At the end of 1942, there were more than 8000 members of these various militias.

Montana, I'll agree with everything you've said here and I don't intend to try to speak for Stan. I think I remember a movie called "Red Dawn" where an indigent group of Americans sucessfully fought back an invasion by Russia, and more power to them.

If someone ever breaks into my home carrying an AR-15, I hope that I have equivalent or better firepower to confront them.

The point remains that the current interpretation of the second amendment depends on the laws passed by Congress, then whether the President signs or vetoes that legislation, then whether Congress can override that veto, and then finally how the Supreme Court interprets and rules on that law. Anything that has happened in the past may be considered in the decision by the Supreme Court, but it doesn't necessarily affect the outcome. Again, it all depends on the makeup of the court.