I'd give up talking to that moron. All he's good for is "fake news" "TDS" "Duhhhhh", I think his knuckles must hurt something chronic from them dragging on the floor every day.
the court has ruled several times, and it is an individual right not connected to the militia ad it encompasses any weapon that is of use or in use by the military or in common use in the civilian world.
They hate the truth, and rather than accept it, they choose to lie about it.
Yes. There was cannon at the militia armory the British wer marching to seize at the Battle of Lexington and Concord.
Nobody is talking about it not being an individual right.
you want to restrict the right so go play your word games with someone else.
Yes. There was cannon at the militia armory the British wer marching to seize at the Battle of Lexington and Concord.
"
Like
Dislike
Militia Artillery Units in the American Revolutionary War
During the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the colonial militia formed the backbone of the Patriot forces, but they were not a full-time, professional army. Instead, they were part-time, locally organized volunteer units drawn from adult male citizens, often farmers, artisans, and tradespeople grokipedia.com. While most militia units were infantry, some states and commanders raised artillery components to supplement the Continental Army’s firepower.
Role and Organization
- Artillery in the militia was typically light field artillery, not heavy siege guns. These were often muskets with long barrels or light cannons (like 3–6 pounders) mounted on carts or wagons.
- Artillery was usually attached to infantry regiments rather than forming independent units. For example, Connecticut’s militia regiments sometimes included light dragoon or artillery companies alongside foot and horse units Wikiwand +1.
- Artillery service was short-term—often weeks or months—because militia members were expected to return to civilian life after the threat passed grokipedia.com.
- Many militia artillerymen were volunteers who could also serve as infantry, and they often provided their own weapons and equipment Wikipedia.
Examples of Militia Artillery Units
While comprehensive state-by-state lists of artillery companies are limited, some known militia units that included artillery or light gunnery roles include:
- Governor’s Foot Guards (Connecticut) – sometimes equipped with light guns for ceremonial or defensive use Wikiwand .
- Seymour’s Regiment of Light Dragoons (Connecticut) – light cavalry with potential for artillery support in skirmishes Wikiwand .
- 1st Battalion State Regiment (Connecticut) – included artillery components alongside infantry Wikiwand .
- Various militia regiments in states like Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia often had artillery companies attached for specific campaigns, especially in the Southern theater where mobility was key grokipedia.com.
Tactical Use
- Militia artillery was used for defensive positions, supporting infantry assaults, and harassing British lines in skirmishes.
- In the Southern campaigns, partisan militia bands sometimes used light artillery to disrupt British supply lines and communications grokipedia.com.
- Because militia artillery was less disciplined and less mobile than the Continental Army’s, it was often deployed in support roles rather than as the main offensive arm.
Summary
Militia artillery units in the Revolutionary War were light, mobile, and irregular compared to the Continental Army’s standardized artillery. They were integrated into infantry regiments, often provided by volunteers, and used primarily for support and harassment rather than sustained siege operations. Their existence reflected the need to supplement the Continental Army’s firepower with locally available manpower and resources Wikipedia+2."
The COLONIES didn’t arm the militias. The members provided their own weapons. The Second also allowed citizens to own private warships. Ever hear of privateers?
I see we have another person who's going to prove nothing, show nothing, not make their own argument then disappear after a few insults.
I post my opinions and facts I remember. I don’t owe you proof or even courtesy given your attitude.
Ah, yes. You post "what you remember".....
Please don’tAh, yes. You post "what you remember".....
How about you actually go out and find the facts and the statistics.
No, you don't owe me anything. You don't even need to come on this forum. You don't need to try.
However, I've found, that by searching for the facts and the statistics, I get a much better understanding of the topic for myself. Which is why I understand the topic much better than the MAGA fools who come on here and post their "opinions and what they remember". Which isn't ******* much, is it?
This isn't just you. It's EVERY MAGA person on this forum. Every single one is incapable of looking for facts and statistics. EVERY SINGLE ONE. What does that say.
You say I have a bad attitude. I do. Because I come on here every day and I have to deal with people who's response to me posting the evidence, making the argument as best as I can, is "no, you're wrong".
They don't even try. They just say "no, you're wrong".
You can see Westwall doing it on this thread, you can see M14 Shooter doing it. So why should I have a good attitude towards people who put no effort into anything?
You're lucky I even bother replying to you.
Your argument overreads Heller. “In common use” is not a magic phrase that automatically immunizes any popular firearm from regulation. Heller recognized both that protected arms are commonly used for lawful purposes and that “dangerous and unusual weapons” may be banned, expressly noting that “M-16 rifles and the like” are outside the protected core. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624–27, 627 n.26 (2008)
Sorry,
in 39 the court held a weapon must be of use or in use by the military. Thus, an ar-15 is protected.
Your statement is false, and you knew it was false when you made it
Your prove my claim, above. Thank you
The AR15(et al) is the most popular rifle in America, commonly available, in common use, and commonly chosen for use, for just about every legal purpose there is for a firearm - if the AR15s level of availability, use, and choice for use does not meet Heller's "in common use and thus is a bearable arm, protected by the 2nd" test, then no firearm does.
Thank you for demonstrating you do not understand Bruen
Thank you for again demonstrating you do not understand Heller, Caetano or Bruen.
It did, and intentionally so -- and, unquestionably, the AR15(et al) meets the requirements of that language.
I didn't say it did. I used the words of the lunatic anti-gun liberal justices to support and expand my point.
Thank you for further demonstrating you do not understand Bruen
There's no factual or rational basis for the proposition the AR15(et al) do not meet each and every test necessary to qualify as a "bearable arm" and thus fall under the protection of the 2nd.
