A succinct description of the #2

with respect to "regulated", all that means is that the state has the right to regulate arms standards and people standards.

Militia is basically the people of American citizenry.

the Militia is not the National Guard. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Exactly (kinda) what Scalia says in Heller. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It’s hysterical that these guys pretend the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to individuals that aren’t part of some government organization, when the entire point of it is to protect people from an overreaching government. It ensures the people the power to redress grievances when all else fails.

Exactly (kinda) what Scalia says in Heller. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It’s hysterical that these guys pretend the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to individuals that aren’t part of some government organization, when the entire point of it is to protect people from an overreaching government. It ensures the people the power to redress grievances when all else fails. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

you see this in legal decisions by statists judges and justices by denying individual right, they did this for 100+ years by dancing around the individual right to firearms.

So you’re saying the government can’t do it but the states can’t do it. Only citizens can defend themselves domestically.

I’m not sure you know that you’re arguing against yourself. But you are.

My point was that the need for the protections provided by a standing militia is today served by local (often way too many) law enforcement agencies.

But then again, you believe that laws written 240 years ago are sacred. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

States can't be in conflict of the Federal Constitution. The word "Infringe" is what Liberals don't seem to understand. American Citizens won't be giving up any Firearms anytime soon. For example If the Government banned the AR-15 and enacted that no Firearm Manufacture will continue to produce the AR-15 that may not necessarily be unconstitutional. But for the Government to mandate existing AR-15 owners must turn in their AR-15 that would be infringement of the 2nd Amendment and would be unconstitutional. The Government will always have difficulty in obtaining existing weapons legally obtained and owned.

States can't be in conflict of the Federal Constitution. The word "Infringe" is what Liberals don't seem to understand. American Citizens won't be giving up any Firearms anytime soon. For example If the Government banned the AR-15 and enacted that no Firearm Manufacture will continue to produce the AR-15 that may not necessarily be unconstitutional. But for the Government to mandate existing AR-15 owners must turn in their AR-15 that would be infringement of the 2nd Amendment and would be unconstitutional. The Government will always have difficulty in obtaining existing weapons legally obtained and owned. Originally Posted by Levianon17

disagree.



if they only banned 5.56mm/.260 AR-15. it'd be legal if all other makes of different calibers/models (.38, 7.65mm, 9mm, etc...) aren't banned. this is part of state regulation.



if all guns are banned, that would be illegal.

Guys. Its easy. The Bill of Rights [first ten amendments] are guaranteed Individual rights.

We have the right to own guns. For personal reasons and to rise up against a tyrannical govt!

disagree.



if they only banned 5.56mm/.260 AR-15. it'd be legal if all other makes of different calibers/models (.38, 7.65mm, 9mm, etc...) aren't banned. this is part of state regulation.



if all guns are banned, that would be illegal. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

My AR fires both 5.56 or 223 so if they ban the AR wouldn’t they have to ban the Mini 14 another semi automatic that fires the same ammo?

disagree.



if they only banned 5.56mm/.260 AR-15. it'd be legal if all other makes of different calibers/models (.38, 7.65mm, 9mm, etc...) aren't banned. this is part of state regulation.



if all guns are banned, that would be illegal. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

There is only ONE manufacturer of AR-15s: Colt.
Others can't call them that since Colt owns the name.
So, AR-15s are .223 and the argument made would only ban a tiny drop in the bucket.

*pb gets off smartass stool*

Would "personal reasons" include wanting to climb up on a rooftop and open fire on a FOJ parade, WD?

My AR fires both 5.56 or 223 so if they ban the AR wouldn’t they have to ban the Mini 14 another semi automatic that fires the same ammo? Originally Posted by oilfieldace

I feel safer already knowing you've got the loopholes figgered out, ace.

Would "personal reasons" include wanting to climb up on a rooftop and open fire on a FOJ parade, WD? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Thats illegal

My AR fires both 5.56 or 223 so if they ban the AR wouldn’t they have to ban the Mini 14 another semi automatic that fires the same ammo? Originally Posted by oilfieldace

Mine too. In fact it's custom build.If you were to ask me what make that rifle is. I would have to ask which part, lol.

My AR fires .308 or, if you will, 7.62 X 51.

when the entire point of it is to protect people from an overreaching government. It ensures the people the power to redress grievances when all else fails. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

You are completely wrong if you are discussing the 2nd Amendment. This is not even what they are talking about.
They are talking about a free state needing a militia.

Guys. Its easy. The Bill of Rights [first ten amendments] are guaranteed Individual rights.

We have the right to own guns. For personal reasons and to rise up against a tyrannical govt! Originally Posted by winn dixie

Yeah right////like guns will defend ya against Apache helicopters. Patriot missiles and everything else made by our military industrial complex.

As Jefferson wrote, when a government becomes a tyranny, we (the people) have a right to remove that government and institute new laws. Back then, government had to tread lighter than they do today. The last time we had mass incarceration of political prisoners, we were at war. That includes the imprisonment of a future presidential candidate (sound familiar).

I should point out that history condemned Wilson for this.