Discussion pertaining to the militia act of 1792

It doesn't....which is why I've never claimed as much

 

this is correct. I have no intention of using one in a public range, or a private indoor range. I would use them on my own property, or that of friends.

unhindered, in the sense that banning them does nothing what so ever to prevent me from obtaining or using them in said states.

I'm arguing AGAINST such bans. Not sure why there is an issue here.

 

Funny...you said in an earlier post you could use a high capacity mag in a state where they are banned anywhere you wanted. Seems you're changing your tune

But you said earlier you would use them wherever you wanted. But clearly that isn't the case as you wouldn't be able to use them at a public or private gun club in states where they are banned.

 

which is true

nope

yes, wherever I WANT.

I could still use them there, it would just risk possible prosecution. The law "banning" them has no effect on the aABILITY to obtain or use them. Which is my point.

 

Unless the hunting being carried out is the type that involves no bag limit, such as the hunting of nuisance species, where the goal is total eradication.

 

A 10/22 with a 2x25 mag will make a dent in the local rat population...

 

What of populations of larger vermin whose weight class is easily in the double digit range?

 

Nice spin
And yes, it does have an effect on the ability to obtain them as you can’t obtain them as easily as you could a legal mag.

 

We don’t have that issue in MA. There is no species that the state wants eradicated. Hence my point.

 

Other than legal firearm owners themselves.

 

Of which you have zero proof

 

He isn't justifying that stupid law

 

huh?

no, it has no effect. I can easily obtain a high cap mag in all 50 states.

 

Sure thing...

 

For that, we have...

 

Yes, I'd forgotten about those rotating cylinders, though I think this was a minimum requirement for those enlisted in the militia.

Don't remember what else they were exempt from.

Of course it would, but there was never an intention to limit the right to keep and bear arms. You may find your semi is not good enough for the requirements of today. I'd imagine they'd want you to have the rifle and pistol the army carries. I would also imagine you'd have to purchase the vests, helmets, boots and all the rest, according to what the national army would need you to have, if called to duty.

No, I know it wasn't, but it truly is an example of what was intended by the founding fathers. And, that's what you are talking about. If you want to follow the original meaning, then I think it should fully be done, unless it infringes upon the rights of someone.

 

Tell me more about how gender is a social construct.

 

No, my argument was with your "3 rounds per minute" tripe.

 

That's what I bought my AK for.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The original intent of the Second Amendment was for the states to organize militias for self defense because the framers did not trust a standing army with centralized control and the the second clause was there to prevent the central government from disarming the states.
Militias were found to be inefficient and a standing army was formed. The Second seemed antiquated until...it was used for other purposes.
https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/...ue3/Kozuskanich10U.Pa.J.Const.L.413(2008).pdf

 

There is no historical text supporting the suggestion of the second amendment being intended exclusively for states to conduct their own affairs. To the direct contrary, the united states constitution, and the bill of rights contained within, was originally intended solely to restrict the actions of the soon-to-be federal government, and had no authority over the actions of the individual states.

 

Non sequitur inanity ignored for obvious reasons.

 

Wrong!

Your argument is STILL with the OP who has fallaciously DECIDED that the Militia Act of 1792 MUST be applied to modern firearms.

 

Yet more Libertarian bovine excrement that has no factual basis whatsoever.

The Federal government most certainly was given authority over the states in several clauses in the Constitution.

 

Show this to be true. Original source material please.