Question for folks who want to ban civilian use of semi-auto firearms:

Try to own a full auto rifles. It has restrictions. Sheesh.

 

Other than firearms that cannot be legally imported into the united states, but which can be manufactured in the united states, there is nothing on the market that cannot legally be owned by a private individual.

 

And yet they can indeed be legally owned. Meaning they are not prohibited from private ownership.

 

I said restricted. Not banned!!!!
Go buy a claymore.

 

What is the meaningful difference between something that is prohibited and something that is restricted?

 

Those are infringements, not limits. There are no limits on the 2nd Amendment but plenty of infringements, in total violation of the Constitution, on the right to keep and bear arms

 

What restrictions does the 2A impose?
I sense you are trolling.

 

My point exactly.
There are no limits per the 2A.
But we have, as a society, imposed some. It's subject to public safety and public needs and wants.

If we can't own what a militia owns, then 2A is infringed upon.

 

One thing to consider.....hunting today is by and large a sport. If the Founders intended by the second amendment, to safe guard a sport, they would have defined our right to own and possess bowling balls. Think they had something else in mind.

 

One thing to consider.....hunting today is by and large a sport. If the Founders intended by the second amendment, to safe guard a sport, they would have defined our right to own and possess bowling balls. Think they had something else in mind.

 

One thing to consider.....hunting today is by and large a sport. If the Founders intended by the second amendment, to safe guard a sport, they would have defined our right to own and possess bowling balls. Think they had something else in mind.

 

They wrote we needed arms to be a well regulated militia.
That's a whole lot of arms that we all should be able to own. Claymore? Howitzer? LAW?

 

Well, if you studied History, you would understand that each militia member had his own personal firearm that was on a par with anything the government issued. In those days it was at the very least a Brown Bess Musket. At best a Rifled Kentucky Long Rifle. The militia member would arrive prepared with his personal weapon when called. Don't think many came with an 8 lb.. canon. I would say the Founders intended citizens to have enough arms to dissuade an abusive government as was the English King and Parliament. Hunting had nothing to do with it.

 

What's an abusive gov't likely to have today as an arsenal of arms?

More than a rifle, full auto or not. But I am getting a hint that you actually want a restriction on arms owning? Based on your personal interpretation of what you think the founders meant.

 

I'm not playing anymore. I think you understood what I said. Not asking that we are free to own RPG's or such. Just the freedoms I believe you would feel justified in eliminating.

 

The united state supreme court outright rejected the notion of balancing the second amendment against vague, poorly defined concepts such as "public safety" in the Heller ruling, holding that constitutional rights are not limited by means of a judicial interest balancing test, as such would ultimately render constitutional rights null and void.

Pray tell, precisely what firearms and/or other materials would a militia actually own, as opposed to being assigned and issued for official use?

 

You got my point. 2A is not limited. But everyone wants some limits. Rightly so. The issue is where is the line in the Sand.

You don't have to play anymore.
You have your 2A limits. Like everyone does. Even USSC seems to.

 

You tell us what you think a well regulated militia would need.

I stated mine a few times.

 

What equipment the militia may or may not need is entirely dependent upon the situation, and what role it is to be serving in said situation. Specifics are needed to answer such a question.

 

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So who's this everybody you're referring to? I'm part of everybody and I want no limits; no line in the sand.

 

Since that situation won't be known until some other militia takes aggressive action, all one can do is look at what the other militia's of the world possess. As any one of them could be the likely aggressor.
And the best way to prepare is to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Would you not agree?

 

No line?
Nuke devices are ok for private citizens to own?

If so, good for you. You want to follow the exact limits placed on us by 2A.
Most 2A hardcores will call my statement about individuals owning nukes a crazy statement. Meaning they want limits imposed.

One is even debating me now. Wondering what militia would be of concern to know what us individuals should have. Telling me that person wants limits imposed and is not a true 2A believer.

 

In The United States v Miller, the Supreme Court explicitly held that what the 2nd Amendment does protect are those weapons commonly used by the military. So, you're right; the AR-15 would not, according to that case, be protected by the 2nd Amendment - but fully automatic M-16s would most certainly be... I'm not a huge fan of the Miller decision - Miller himself was murdered before he could defend his case and, as a result, the Court did not have to hear evidence that short-barreled shotguns were absolutely commonly used in the military and, at least for short-barreled shotguns, NFA 1934 would have been overturned.

 

Claymores are commonly used.
M50's are commonly used.
Tanks and Howitzers are commonly used.
But I don't really care if an AR-15 is or isn't limited. It's not much more than a .22

My only real beef is the ease at which some mass shooter can fire off rounds without ever having to stop for reloads.
To me, and others argue against it, reload is a vulnerable time in a mass shooting. Make em reload very often.

 

I don't know whether or not xenamnes agrees (but I have a guess), but I can tell you that is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. To think that we'd limit our own militia based on what a bunch of third-world or other nations have is just ludicrous. Our goal is not parity with those who would do us harm, our goal is such total and absolute supremacy that they would never even consider harming us.

In fact, our goal should be such that if the rest of the entire world decided to join forces and storm our shores and attempt to defeat us on our own soil that we would have such overwhelming superiority that, even the entire world as a group, would not dare to attack us... and if they're just that stupid, then they pay the price; or to quote Admiral Yamamoto:

I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.