what would a better term other than MSR, or what wooden stocked rifle would we buy? What would you call a rifle that had an AR action but a nice wooden stock like a traditional rifle?

he needs to re enlist in the military.

If he wants his kids to know about stuff like that, he can suggest they enlist in the military when they're old enough.

since no military uses them.

Either he had a bunch of money to spend at once, or he has a different definition of "impulse buy" than I do.

but Aymette vs the state was in 1839, during the period when this country was starting to come to terms with the reality that a citizen militia did not work, had not worked, would never work. If the country wanted to survive, it needed a professional army around which citizens could be trained when necessary.

This is the period during which the Second should have been repealed, gun law left first to the states and clarified over time by the courts.

Face it, you cited a very old case or two to prove that modern military weapons should be in civilian hands. This is not true as proven by the carnage. My original point stands.

until the Cold War. Prior to that, the War Dept lost most of its funding and military became very small. So, your point doesn't stand. There would be a few professionals, but most of the military would be state militias and conscripts mobilized only during the war.

These are not modern military weapons, even though they resemble them. If they were select fire assault rifles, you would have a point. Since they are not, you don't.

Since the collective rights model didn't exist until the 1930s and did not gain support until the 1960s, it never occurred to anyone to get an amendment to cancel it out.

It's my varmint rifle of choice, in spite of all I've heard about problems with accuracy.

I understand the tactical version


has made the Feinstein shit list (note: no flash suppresor) but there are plenty of after market stocks available if you want that AR look

At least that's what I've learned from watching old episodes of the A-Team.

That list for everyone...


Hard to believe the prices nice old WWII firearms fetch these days.


I traded my mini last spring for a p229...kinda wish I'd kept the mini.

All well such is life, I start saving for something new to add to my collection.

"I don't care if you're a marine corps veteran or not, eric, I'm so glad I don't live next to such a man as you, with your arsenal of guns & assault rifles."

Why does an 'arsenal' matter?

Shit, he's only got two arms like everyone else.
I'd be more worried if he was setup like an octopus, or cthulhu or something.

tench coxe: Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American
hansberry: so said Mr. Coxe

Here's tench coxe's quote in fuller context, hans simply cherry picked out of context again: Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.. Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

You do realize hans, that tench coxe was originally a tory? Not that he was wrong about what 2ndA entailed - rkba based on a well reg'd militia. Or at least he was loyalist for a time, then was a patriot, then maybe again a tory (or vv), depending on his financial situation. In fact, he was known as some kind of two faced janus to americans back then, tench coxe the man on both sides or SLT - wait let me google. Another 2ndA myth gonna bite the dust.

wiki: After Patriots took power, Coxe left Philadelphia for a few months, only to return when British General Howe occupied the city in September 1777. Coxe remained in Philadelphia after the British departed in 1778, and some Patriots accused him of having Royalist sympathies and of having served (briefly) in the British army. Coxe's trading successes during the period of British occupation lent considerable support to the charges, and he was arrested; although nothing ever came of the allegations and he was pardoned. The Pennsylvania militia records of 1780, 1787, and 1788 listed Coxe as a militia private.
1804: He was called a tory, a Federal rat, a British guide who had entered Philadelphia in 1777 with laurel in his hat, and his group was nicknamed the “quids.”
.. The great majority of Loyalists never left {US}, they stayed on and were allowed to be citizens of the new country. Some became nationally prominent leaders, including Samuel Seabury and Tench Coxe.

wiki: tench coxe: The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people. The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Note how, in the last sentence, coxe refers to militia as 'the people'.

Jimmy the one said: Note how, in the last sentence, coxe refers to militia as 'the people'.

Yes, and how does that help your argument? According to Coxe, the mitlitia was not some discrete set of persons enrolled by the state, but all of us. "The birthright of americans" does not refer to a right conditioned on service in a state organized militia but rather an inherent right.

"Not in the hands of the federal or state governments" puts the lie to the argument that the RKBA is limited to service in a state organized militia, or that 2A was intented only as protection of the states against federal encroachment.

Coxe's reference of the militia as the people simply reinforces the absurdity of the claim that the second amendment protects only select militias organized by the state governments.

Are the rights of the people in the rest of the BOR limited to persons in the state militia? Or do you also read those amendments out of context?

hans berry: Jimmy the one said: Note how, in the last sentence, coxe refers to militia as 'the people'. Yes, and how does that help your argument?

Went over your head did it? I'm surprised hans, or you just being coy? In arguing the bill of rights gun gurus claim 'the people' always meant americans in general, thus dismissing 'the people' in 2ndA as referring to the well reg'd militia. Coxe refers to the people as the militia.

hans: According to Coxe, the mitlitia was not some discrete set of persons enrolled by the state, but all of us.

Er, wrong, coxe did confine the militia to a 'discrete set of persons' - coxe meant only age eligible white males since he CLEARLY wrote:
The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?

So Coxe later in the paragraph qualified 'the people' as being age eligible white males age 16 - 60 accd'g to the Militia Act of 1792 (most all blacks were still slaves, & by coxe's writing the age evidently expanded from 45 to 60 in his eyes). These 16-60 white males are the militia he refers to as 'ourselves'. Women could not even vote & were not entitled or accustomed to arms.

Websters 1828 Dictionary:
YEOMANRY, n. The collective body of yeomen or freeholders. Thus the common people in America, are called yeomanry
YEOMAN: 1. A common man, or one of the plebeians, of the first or most respectable class; a freeholder; a man free born.

hans: "The birthright of americans" does not refer to a right conditioned on service in a state organized militia but rather an inherent right.

Your reasoning is as usual, convoluted & strained. The birthright of americans was the inherent right to belong to a well regulated militia of the state, & to keep & bear arms therein.

hans: "Not in the hands of the federal or state governments" puts the lie to the argument that the RKBA is limited to service in a state organized militia, or that 2A was intented only as protection of the states against federal encroachment.

Again you take coxe out of context, AGAIN. He wrote the 'unlimited power of the sword' was not in state or congressional legislatures hands, that meaning the militia in 2ndA stood as a check against these two govt legislatures if they were to turn tyrannical, since the officers of the militia were part of the people, as well.

hans: Are the rights of the people in the rest of the BOR limited to persons in the state militia? Or do you also read those amendments out of context?

No the rights of the people is limited to a well regulated militia only in the 2ndA, duh.
And a transparent PATHETIC attempt hans, to claim that 'I' am the one taking things out of context.

Jimmy the one wrote:
The birthright of americans was the inherent right to belong to a well regulated militia of the state, & to keep & bear arms therein.


Why jimmy, that theory explains perfectly another of Mr. Coxe's commentaries:
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"

Of course, Coxe's usage of "private arms" can be nothing other than a reference to the arms allowed to persons in the select state militia when in actual service.


Why just this morning the new NRA pres echoed Charleton Heston's defiant words: From his cold dead hands -that is the only way they will get his free state militia membership card!

hansberry: Why jimmy, that theory explains perfectly another of Mr. Coxe's commentaries:
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"

The people have the right to keep & bear their private arms for service in the well regulated militia, is what tench coxe wrote.
The militia act of 1792 mandated, or at least tried to, that white males 17-45 provide their own private arms for yearly militia duty, that is what coxe is referring to.
There was no proscription on white males owning private firearms circa 1800, indeed the militia act of 1792 encouraged it. But less than half those white males owned a firearm, likely only about 25% did, most arms provided by the state, kept in state armories.

Of course, Coxe's usage of "private arms" can be nothing other than a reference to the arms allowed to persons in the select state militia when in actual service.

Huh? no comprende', was this satire? There was no select state militia, it was a citizens militia involving all age eligible white males, no selectivity about it. Select militia concept was rejected, instead the citizens militia adopted, even tho geo washington preferred a select militia of a more trained more zealous segment of volunteer citizens, thinking an armed society a dangerous society.

Why just this morning the new NRA pres echoed Charleton Heston's defiant words: From his cold dead hands -that is the only way they will get his free state militia membership card!

new nra presidunce subscribes to the 'lost cause of the confederacy' movement, or at least he's trying his best to resurrect it.

Jimmy said: Huh? no comprende', was this satire?

Really, you had to ask? In that quote Coxe does not even utter the word "militia", state organized or otherwise, instead he writes of the right of the people to keep and bear their "private arms", and yet somehow in your warped reasoning, Coxe must be referring to "private arms" for use only in service to a well regulated militia (by which you mean state organized).


But if, as you say, the people have an inherent right to belong to a militia in which to keep and bear arme therein, do we not then have an inherent right to keep and bear arms?

Or will you next argue that the RKBA is conditioned on service in a state organized militia?

Can the civil-rulers of the state take away the inherent right by deciding not to train the militia? Is that really the most natural reading of Coxe's commentary below?

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"


Do civil-rulers have a duty only to the people enrolled in the state organized militia or do they have a duty to the people at large as well?

"I wanted my kids to appreciate the artifacts used to shape our nation's history."

Boy, he sure got that right. Does he have any idea what he actually admitted?

hansberry: In that quote Coxe does not even utter the word "militia", state organized or otherwise, instead he writes of the right of the people to keep and bear their "private arms", and yet somehow in your warped reasoning, Coxe must be referring to "private arms" for use only in service to a well regulated militia (by which you mean state organized).

Reread what coxe wrote in early 1800s, just read the underlines:

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"

Individual citizens with private arms, unorganized & scattered here & there, outside of a well reg'd militia, would be of little value in stopping a tyrranical govt with a small army of it's own, or even a few hundred 'loyal' armed soldiers intent on tyrannizing citizens armed with a musket here & there.
The only plausible interpretation of what coxe wrote is that of being part of the well regulated citizens militia which, organized, would be a resistance to the tyranny.

But if, as you say, the people have an inherent right to belong to a militia in which to keep and bear arme therein, do we not then have an inherent right to keep and bear arms?

Then in early 1800s yes since there was an actual 'well regulated citizens militia', but today there is no such thing, thus the 2ndA is obsolete & antiquated & worthless. It protects us from nothing harmful.
I renounced my 2nd amendment rights a while back but I can still go out & purchase a firearm, only having to pass a background check, no '2ndA check' necessary. The 2nd amendment is a MYTH.

Or will you next argue that the RKBA is conditioned on service in a state organized militia?

That was the original intent, yes, but today there is no state organized citizens militia as envisioned in 2ndA & militia act of 1792. There is only national & state guards, which are SELECT militias.

Can the civil-rulers of the state take away the inherent right by deciding not to train the militia? Is that really the most natural reading of Coxe's commentary below?

Rather ask, when DO, the 'civil rulers', actually train the unorganized militia?
answer: NEVER.
PS: Your convoluted dialectic reasoning is pretty hard to put up with.

Yes, I am being sarcastic. Whereas you are being ridiculous.

jimmy said:
Then in early 1800s yes since there was an actual 'well regulated citizens militia', but today there is no such thing, thus the 2ndA is obsolete & antiquated & worthless. It protects us from nothing harmful.
I renounced my 2nd amendment rights a while back but I can still go out & purchase a firearm, only having to pass a background check, no '2ndA check' necessary. The 2nd amendment is a MYTH.

So the 2nd is a Mythical amendment with a right that evaporates on the whim of the government -how could anyone hope to challenge such a well founded theory?



Jjimmy said:
The only plausible interpretation of what coxe wrote is that of being part of the well regulated citizens militia which, organized, would be a resistance to the tyranny

Who decides if the citizens militia is organized enough to exist, the government that might tyrannize the people? That is so far from plausible that it is farcical.