re: SCOTUS to hear AR-15 case

quote:

---

we conservatives need to be honest with ourselves for a moment...


a basic arse AR-15 chambered in 5.56 with a 14.5" / 16" barrel IS the same rifle as a basic arse M4A1 Block 1 rifle chambered in 5.56 with a 14.5" barrel.

---

The honesty aspect is that the 2nd Amendment was, in part, for the common man to be able to arm himself with at least whatever a member of an opposing infantryman might have (or some equivalent). While nowhere is this expressly stated, we can glean that meaning from Federalist 29 & 46 as the idea of a citizen militia was for it to not only repel foreign invaders but to opposed domestic despotism as well. Those things cannot be done if the opposing infantryman is far superiorly armed.

So if we're going to dilute the right enough to argue about whether or not a specific firearm should be considered a "weapon of war" we should be doing so from the rhetorical ground that being able to possess weapons of war was the minimum idea behind the 2nd Amendment, not some pearl-clutching exclusion to it.

quote:

---

Funny how the first part of the Second Amendment never appears in these convos.

---

Read DC v. Heller. The prefatory clause (which has nothing to do with "regulations" in the modern sense) in no way limits the operative clause.

"A well-read electorate, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to read and own books, shall not be infringed."

Based on Democrat arguments regarding the 2A, they would say this sentence either 1) doesn't protect book ownership at all, since the electorate is no longer well-read, or 2) only protects the ability of well-read people, collectively, to own books.