A federal appeals court on Friday struck down parts of New York's controversial concealed carry law but upheld most of the ban on carrying guns in "sensitive places."
We don’t agree on a lot but I’m forced to agree with you on this. The only weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are the ones you would issue to the men and women you would muster in civil defense - AR-15’s and the like.
The 2nd Amendment is an insurmountable obstacle to impactful, meaningful gun reform in the United States, regardless of your position on whether that reform should be carried out.
The only weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are the ones you would issue to the men and women you would muster in civil defense - AR-15’s and the like.
I’m glad we can agree that the second amendment covers fully automatic, burst fire, and high caliber weapons and ammo.
I am fine not having fully automatic or burst. As long as it is otherwise a capable weapon that i can use military ammo and magazine with.
5.56 isn’t what I would call high caliber. It was picked because it had decent stopping power and you could carry a lot of ammo for it. The kick is minimal to it when you are shooting it.
We got to shoot our M-16 of full auto for fun but it isn’t something we would have done in the field. That is why you have the M-240 or the SAW. THat is why I don’t mind my personal weapons not having them.
I’m being facetious with the guy saying that weapons that would be valuable in civil defense should be fair game. Because should it actually come down to a matter of civil defense, you can bet your ass that truck mounted .50 calibers and larger anti-anor and anti-vehicle weapons are on the table.
Those would be supplied by the state in an emergency. The 2nd amendment was about rifles. The intent was in time of war, each person would show up with their rifle to form an army. The state would supply cannons, etc.
In the modern day, we would show up with rifles and the state would supply us the M2 and other equipment.
In some states, they actually had a law that you had to own a certain type of weapon for that reason. Standards are good. Imagine trying to supply every weird type of ammo everyone could need. That is why I have an AR-15. It is the same type of ammo as the Army. When the Army switches to the SPEAR, I will switch as well.
Then why was “arms”, a fundamentally broad term that obviously encompasses far more than just rifles, used, specifically alongside “shall not be infringed”? If the goal were just for every man to be able to own a single rifle, would they have not written it as such?
At the time arms meant the weapon you carried. You don’t carry a cannon. You don’t carry a tank. You don’t carry a M2. Those are all heavy weapons and not ‘arms’ as used historically. When states required people to muster, they didn’t demand they bring artillery. They expected them to bring arms—their rifles.
You can’t carry an M2. It’s a stationary weapon.
I am pro-Second Amendment, but the intent was never for civilians to own artillery and crew-served weapons. It was meant to allow the building of infantry units.
We don’t agree on a lot but I’m forced to agree with you on this. The only weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are the ones you would issue to the men and women you would muster in civil defense - AR-15’s and the like.
The 2nd Amendment is an insurmountable obstacle to impactful, meaningful gun reform in the United States, regardless of your position on whether that reform should be carried out.
I’m glad we can agree that the second amendment covers fully automatic, burst fire, and high caliber weapons and ammo.
I am fine not having fully automatic or burst. As long as it is otherwise a capable weapon that i can use military ammo and magazine with.
5.56 isn’t what I would call high caliber. It was picked because it had decent stopping power and you could carry a lot of ammo for it. The kick is minimal to it when you are shooting it.
We got to shoot our M-16 of full auto for fun but it isn’t something we would have done in the field. That is why you have the M-240 or the SAW. THat is why I don’t mind my personal weapons not having them.
I’m being facetious with the guy saying that weapons that would be valuable in civil defense should be fair game. Because should it actually come down to a matter of civil defense, you can bet your ass that truck mounted .50 calibers and larger anti-anor and anti-vehicle weapons are on the table.
Those would be supplied by the state in an emergency. The 2nd amendment was about rifles. The intent was in time of war, each person would show up with their rifle to form an army. The state would supply cannons, etc.
In the modern day, we would show up with rifles and the state would supply us the M2 and other equipment.
In some states, they actually had a law that you had to own a certain type of weapon for that reason. Standards are good. Imagine trying to supply every weird type of ammo everyone could need. That is why I have an AR-15. It is the same type of ammo as the Army. When the Army switches to the SPEAR, I will switch as well.
Then why was “arms”, a fundamentally broad term that obviously encompasses far more than just rifles, used, specifically alongside “shall not be infringed”? If the goal were just for every man to be able to own a single rifle, would they have not written it as such?
At the time arms meant the weapon you carried. You don’t carry a cannon. You don’t carry a tank. You don’t carry a M2. Those are all heavy weapons and not ‘arms’ as used historically. When states required people to muster, they didn’t demand they bring artillery. They expected them to bring arms—their rifles.
You can’t carry an M2. It’s a stationary weapon.
I am pro-Second Amendment, but the intent was never for civilians to own artillery and crew-served weapons. It was meant to allow the building of infantry units.
https://bearingarms.com/bobowens-bearingarms/2016/08/25/modern-weapons-founders-want-americans-n26821
Might as well include tactical nukes in “arms”.
Source on this?
It’s in the article I cited.