New York Times supports citizens having "assault weapons"

Ah - you're using physical strength as your metric. Or might. In that case, it really ends here for us. Thanks though.

 

I used power. That includes, denying workers the fruits of their labor through excessive taxes, and imposing restrictions on liberty. Both parties do it.

 

Liberals practice situational ethics rather than basing their conduct on a moral code of principles.

 

"Liberal" is probably not the best name for most of them these days.

That certainly is what it appears from the cross sample of them that post on this forum.

 

You are right of course. Not many real liberals left. I will endeavor to use the term "progressive" or perhaps "progressive liberal."

 

Better check your history. Militia service was not optional in the 1790s.

 

I shot one the other day, loads of fun but give me an old SKS chambered in 30 some odd caliber.

I have shot both, not certain what cartridge the SKS fired but I know it was a larger load. Old steel battle rifle with a stamped steel receiver, open iron sights. Much more powerful weapon, much simpler. Don't care much for the fancy bells and whistles of a new fangled AR.

 

Your erroneous interpretation of the second amendment is in error.

But you do have the right to be wrong no one can take that away from you

 

The SKS fires the old Soviel 7.62x39. Heavy, but slow, bullet.
In every objective way, the AR is a better rifle.

 

I just prefer an old steel gun it feels better.

Heavy slow bullets work good too. Consider the 45 or love bugs on a minivan windshield.

For short to medium range it works just fine.

If you want to try to pick off a man size Target from 400 yards get a dedicated sniper rifle

 

The SKS shoots 7.62 x 39. Heaver bullet and slightly more energy than the US 5.56 x 45 round. Slightly less effective range due to lower velocity. Pretty sure all SKS rifles have a milled receiver. They are generally pretty accurate. The downside to me is not the 10 round clip limitation many people complain about. Rather, it is the lack of a rail such as an AK has for mounting an optic.

 

You can get rails for the SKS, but you may need to, well, customize them to get them to fit.

 

Militia service was and is directly connected to the Constitution and state constitutions. The 2nd Amendment didn't grant any government the power to organize, arm and discipline a militia; the various constitutions did.

 

The 2nd Amendment also did not recognize a right to possess guns for private purposes.

 

The Second Amendment has but a single purpose: to restrict the powers of the government. It neither defines nor creates any right. There is no right to bear arms in a militia, as there is no right to serve in a militia nor does the militia have any rights to any arms, given the power enumerated to Congress to restrict the arms of the militia.

Here's what the Founders felt about an individual right to bear arms:

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.
Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.
Indiana: 1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.
Mississippi: 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).
Missouri: 1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
The constitutions and courts of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times..
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

 

This is just cherry picking. Most state constitutions prior to 1800 made no mention of a right to bear arms for private purposes and most importantly neither did the Second Amendment.

 

It's not cherry picking, it's a list of those that did. Did any state government prohibit or otherwise restrict the right to own guns for private purposes?

And again, and I'll repeat this as many times as I need to, the 2nd Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, neither defines or creates any rights at all. The 1st Amendment doesn't mention cell phones; are they not protected by the 1st Amendment?

 

Yes, the states did restrict the use of guns for private purposes.
Read about the five types of gun control laws that the Founding Fathers loved: https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364

The Second Amendment does not say it recognizes a pre-exisiting right to use guns for private purposes. The First Amendment analogy is irrelevant. No one is arguing that the militia should be limited to using 18th Century firearms.

 

EDIT: Note I said "own guns for private purposes". You do understand that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government until the 14th Amendment was ratified, right? The 2nd wasn't specifically incorporated against the states until Chicago v McDonald in 2010.

Again, and yet again, none of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, define any right. They only limit the government authority. The 2nd was pretty specific there.

Some people are, if not here. There are lots of people arguing that the militia shouldn't have access to actual military weapons, however.

 

Anyway, black guys from south part of america are dangerous.
I agree with weapon in USA in case of all black guys live in reservations.
Just for peace

 

No surprise there, hypocrisy is the cloth anti-gunners are cut from.

 

It's things like the OP's New York Times source that I call pro-war propaganda. Now, cheering on the Ukrainians wouldn't be unique in its own right. The fact that left-wing publications are producing pro-war propaganda in striking contrast to their usual slant is itself disconcerting.