After AR15's are banned, then what?

I am talking about the fact that the Constitution gives us the right of free movement. Modern times thatbmeans using a cat if a plane or a boat.

The Constitution gives us the absolute right to bear arms. It dies not say that we can have an AR15, or a Mossberg Shotgun, or 9mm Glock seminauto, or even the right to have an 18th century musket. So I have the right to use a firearm of my choosing to defend myself even though the Constitution did say that I can have 1911Colt seminauto and use .45 ACP ammo.

 

“A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.” Frederick Douglass

 

If you can't do it until you pay taxes and fees and get permission from the state, its not a right.

 

Freedom to travel on the roads is a false equivalent to the privilege to drive on said roads.

 

The Founders did not anticipate the meteoric jump and advancement in weapons development ,causing the gap in effectiveness a lethal level of weapon that governments have over the populace diminishes the value of the population being armed to fight the "big bad gubmint". The value that the 2nd amendment has is more the .to ensure that we have the right to defend ourselves from ourselves.

These days I fear more that an extreme RW crazy government would be one that would cause us to have to defend ourselves. That was just the onsite in the 30's through 60's when Communists were list likely to be the oppressors. You see even today Trump's favorite guy is Putin a fascist turd who governs as a RW Hitlerite. True that he loves him done Kim Dung Whump of NorKor but that is just an extra circular love affair. Putin and his RW oppression style is Trump's true love.

 

You cannot bear arms unless you purchase arms and ammunition. You cannot hunt except on private land if you do not have a hunting license.

 

When you can address what I actually said, let me know.
Until then, I accept your concession of the point.

 

And yet, if you handed George Washington an M16, he'd know exactly what it is, what it's for, and that he wants his soldiers and militia to have them.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , 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.

 

I did not offer any concession because I have not made any and will not.

If you read what I said was that the 2nd Amendment did not specify the type of arms we could have nor did it say that we couldn't have certain types. . I said that taking a literal reading of the Constitution we can own nuclear arms. So it is probable that except for Benny Franklin and Jefferson I do not know of any other FF that was scientifically astute to consider the probability that technology would someday spiral.

So if anyone tells you that the Constitution said only 18th century arms then they are either lying, ignorant or both.

 

One does not have to purchase their firearms and ammunition from government in order for them to be legal, however. That is the difference.

 

I did not say that we have to purchase guns and ammo fro me the government. But you still need to purchase them. If fact to be part of the militia back then you had to provide your own weapon and powder and bullets.

 

If you can't do it until you pay taxes and fees and get permission from the state, its not a right.

 

Ain't that the truth, dead on!

 

The Constitution did not Grant the right to Keep and bear Arms, nor Free speech, or exercise of religion; it’s a deliberate misreputation, or at best, one made from ignorance by those advocating against individual rights acknowledged in the BOR, but prohibited the government from making laws abridging the those universal rights of individuals acknowledged by the prohibitions imposed on the Government. Understanding the ‘why’ is not found in the text of the BOR, but in the historical context, the letters of the FF, minutes of the Constitutional Convention, and the Federalist Papers, that all illuminate the concerns of FF to avoid the tyrannical, and selective suppression of rights of those seen as a threat to the power of the monarchy and ruling elite. The Left’s challenges to those very rights the government was prohibited from abridging, have at their core, the objective of removing threats to the political power of the elite that capriciously define the doctrine of the collective’s ideology to suit the purposes of that elite.

 

you cannot buy an m 50 machine gun
So i think it is clear the right is not so unlimited as you think it is

 

The result of the Constitution stating that our right cannot be abridged is that we do indeed get the right to bear and hold arms.

On free speech and religion read this:

"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the freeexercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
FindLaw › constitution › amendment1
First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw" this link

 

The Constitution said that my rights regarding bearing arms cannot be abridged. You can get a license to have a machine gun under certain conditions.

 

Is this supposed to refute something I posted?

 

Yes unless I got the wrong victim!

 

Ok
Same for ar15

 

An AR15 is not a "machine gun" it is not an automatic weapon it is a semi automatic weapon therefore legal.

 

Yep, $20,000 or so, plus a Class III/NFA license, and a MG manufactured before 19 May 1986.

 

Uh, yes, you can buy an M2 machine gun.