Outside of the Army? Outside of the militia? Of course I agree -- just don't look for protection under the second amendment.
Your individual RKBA is secured by your state constitution. Unfortunately, your state constitution does not offer much:
"The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that this right does not guarantee individual ownership or possession of weapons. Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E. 2d 847, 849 (1976). In Davis, the supreme court rejected defendants Pt. 1, Art. XVII challenge to a state law prohibiting the possession of a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long. Davis, 343 N.E. 2d at 850. The (Massachusetts) supreme court reasoned that the right to bear arms contained in Pt. 1, Art. XVII concerned the custom of keeping arms for use in militia service and was not directed to guaranteeing individual ownership or possession of weapons.. Davis, 343 N.E. 2d at 848-849.
Essentially, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling is similar to federal court rulings about the second amendment.
Get to work. Change the state constitution.
Let me guess; you ran around the "Reading is Fun" van to get to the ice cream van.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I know that terrifies you because you might not be able to install your Talibornagain whack job government; but that is precisely the purpose of the second ammendemnt.
You communist gun grabbers are a hoot.
A militia can not exist without the right of the common man to bear arms, and that right IS protected under the U.S. Constitution, with the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Without that, a militia couldn't exist, and the first part of the Amendment couldn't exist. The Founding Fathers obviously knew that if people couldn't arm themselves, they couldn't rise if necessary to protect themselves from tyranny.