# AR15:   In common use?



## M14 Shooter (Jun 21, 2022)

According to the NSSF, there are around 20 million AR-type rifles in the US.








						America has 20 million AR-15 style rifles in circulation, and more guns than people in the country
					

There are 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the US, enough for each person in the country to own one with 63 million left over.




					www.businessinsider.com
				




In comparison, we currently have around 16.1 million F-series trucks on the street.


			https://fordauthority.com/2021/04/there-are-currently-16-1-million-ford-f-series-pickups-on-u-s-roads/
		


When was the last time you saw an Ford truck on the road?
So often you don't notice, right?

There you go.


----------



## Confederate Soldier (Jun 21, 2022)

So what's your point?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 21, 2022)

Confederate Soldier said:


> So what's your point?


The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use" for traditionally lawful purposes.
This contrasts with "dangeroun and unusual" weapons, which are not so protected.


----------



## Confederate Soldier (Jun 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use" for traditionally lawful purposes.
> This contrasts with "dangeroun and unusual" weapons, which are not so protected.




All weapons are dangerous, that's why we call them weapons...


----------



## 1srelluc (Jun 21, 2022)

Looking around the gun room I'd say yeah....But then again so are AKs, SKSs, and FALs. 

Younger people forget that in the chi-com import heyday hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of AKs/SKSs were imported and sold here in the US. 

I remember back before the Clinton Import Ban I went to Navy Arm's storefront in WV and they sent me to the warehouse to pick-up two crates of SKSs I had bought.....They were stacked on pallets by their thousands. a whole warehouse full and that was just one of the many importers during that era.

I suspect most are still in circulation too.

This ad is from 1989.....I was buying them by the case for $79.00 each and Type 53s for $29.00 each wholesale.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> According to the NSSF, there are around 20 million AR-type rifles in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So how many yellow cabs are in the US--after yesterday's mass murder, I think they should be banned.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> According to the NSSF, there are around 20 million AR-type rifles in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The problem I have with the phrase, "in common use," is the way the left will work to take guns out of "common use," so they can ban them.......they think long term...


----------



## Batcat (Jun 21, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> Looking around the gun room I'd say yeah....But then again so are AKs, SKSs, and FALs.
> 
> Younger people forget that in the chi-com import heyday hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of AKs/SKSs were imported and sold here in the US.
> 
> ...


I got an email advertisement for AK-47 style rifles today. They are now far more expensive. 






						AK-47 Rifles For Sale - Buy Online at Classic Firearms
					






					www.classicfirearms.com


----------



## 1srelluc (Jun 21, 2022)

A basic fixed-stock chi-com AK back then was just under $300.00, a under-folder AK about $350.00 so your basic AK cost $707.00 in 2022 dollars.  I bought them wholesale so retail would have been a bit higher.

One weird thing, a SKS M that took AK mags was as expensive as a fixed-stock AK due to the extra labor it took to convert the SKS and fit a new stock.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 21, 2022)

Confederate Soldier said:


> All weapons are dangerous, that's why we call them weapons...


And thus, the "dangerous" in the term "dangerous and unusual" must be in excess of that commonly attached to a firearm.


----------



## Confederate Soldier (Jun 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, the "dangerous" in the term "dangerous and unusual" must be in excess of that commonly attached to a firearm.




So a bigger clip makes an AR more dangerous? Buddy, a bolt action rifle can have just as big of a clip...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 21, 2022)

Confederate Soldier said:


> So a bigger clip makes an AR more dangerous?


Magazine.
Only the anti gun loons believe this.


----------



## Confederate Soldier (Jun 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Magazine.
> Only the anti gun loons believe this.




Magazine, clip, bandoleer, drum, belt, what the fuck ever. The point is, an AR is just a name. There are plenty other guns that can do the same thing. The AR is sexier though.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 21, 2022)

Confederate Soldier said:


> All weapons are dangerous, that's why we call them weapons...



Some more dangerous than others ...


----------



## Failzero (Jun 21, 2022)

My Type 56 “ Spiker “ AK ( Chinese ) is as valuable as my L1A1 SLR ( British )


----------



## Abatis (Jun 22, 2022)

Confederate Soldier said:


> All weapons are dangerous, that's why we call them weapons...



That doesn't tell us anything about what government's powers might be to regulate guns . . .  True, the dangerousness of gun is not really in dispute, but "dangerousness" alone is not the only criteria for hearing government's plea to be afforded a power to restrict an arm's possession and use.

Here is a short primer on "dangerous and unusual" . . . 

The first thing to understand is the government doesn't get to begin the conversation demanding a power by claiming, "this gun is dangerous and unusual", and suddenly the citizen must defend his right to possess and use that type of arm.

The determination that a type of arm is "dangerous and unusual" is what remains after the protection criteria is applied and the type of arm _fails all of them_.

The Supreme Court has established a multi-pronged "test" to find out if a type of arm is beyond the reach of government (AKA, "protected" by the 2nd Amendment).

The arm must be of a type that is,* part of the ordinary military equipment / usual in civilized warfare* and/or if its use could *contribute to the common defense* or simply, is of a type *in common use by the citizens*.  SCOTUS in _Heller_ and _Caetano_ clarified also that the 2nd Amendment's protection "extends . . . to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".

If a gun meets *any* of those criteria, the power claimed by government to restrict its possession and use by individual citizens must be repelled or invalidated if already in force, (in _Heller_, the Court only used one, the "in common use" test to invalidate the DC statutes).  If the type of arm *FAILS* all those tests, then it could be deemed, "dangerous and unusual" and government could legitimately be afforded a power to restrict its possession and use by citizens.

That "_dangerous and unusual_" arms have, historically and traditionally been restricted is the origination for _Heller_'s statement that, "_the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . . [it is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"_.

Again, dangerousness alone is not a criteria to permit restrictions.  The arm must also be _unusual_ but _unusual_ does not refer to say, unconventional looks or "style". It actually means, *"not usual*_ in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defense_". 

This concept is explained in the case the Supreme Court used to form its reasoning in _US v Miller_ and where the Court drew its language in _Miller_'s famous paragraph:

"A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?​​The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence."​​*Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840)*​

So, when "dangerous and unusual" is stated as a criteria for justifying a government restricting the citizen's possession and use of a _certain, specific type of arm_, understand that before that term can even be considered, the arm must have _*failed*_ all the protection criteria.  

In the end, the term must be understood to mean and read as describing a specific type of arm that is, _dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, *and *which is not usual in civilized warfare or otherwise would be of little use in war or self defense_.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 22, 2022)

Abatis said:


> That doesn't tell us anything about what government's powers might be to regulate guns . . .  True, the dangerousness of gun is not really in dispute, but "dangerousness" alone is not the only criteria for hearing government's plea to be afforded a power to restrict an arm's possession and use.
> 
> Here is a short primer on "dangerous and unusual" . . .
> 
> ...




Alito addressed the "Dangerous and Unusual" argument in Caetano v Massachusetts......



> *Opinion of the Court[edit]*
> 
> Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf




Opinion of the Court[edit]



*In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.*
*
------
As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). 
*
*That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. *
*

*
*First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). *
*


Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. 


*
*If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis*




> *---*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 22, 2022)

Abatis said:


> In the end, the term must be understood to mean and read as describing a specific type of arm that is, _dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, *and *which is not usual in civilized warfare or otherwise would be of little use in war or self defense_.


And thus, the "dangerous" in the term "dangerous and unusual" must be in excess of that commonly attached to a firearm.


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 22, 2022)

Confederate Soldier said:


> Magazine, clip, bandoleer, drum, belt, what the fuck ever. The point is, an AR is just a name. There are plenty other guns that can do the same thing. The AR is sexier though.


"The AR is sexier though". Really? An instrument of death is "sexy"?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> According to the NSSF, there are around 20 million AR-type rifles in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The test is whether a weapon is ‘in common use’ or ‘dangerous and unusual’ – pickup trucks are neither dangerous nor unusual, how common they are is therefore irrelevant.

Rather, the question shouldn’t be limited to just AR 15s, but all semi-auto rifles and carbines – the many Kalashnikov variants, FN SCAR 16s and 17s, FN FALs, HK 91s other roller-delayed blowback firearms, M1As, Galils, Czech vz 58s, just to name a few.

Indeed, there are at least another 20 million non-AR platform firearms in the United States.

Consequently, with that many semi-automatic rifles and carbines with 20- or 30-round detachable magazines possessed by private citizens, such weapons are clearly ‘in common use’ and should fall within the scope of Second Amendment protections.


----------



## Concerned American (Jun 22, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> The test is whether a weapon is ‘in common use’ or ‘dangerous and unusual’ – pickup trucks are neither dangerous nor unusual, how common they are is therefore irrelevant.
> 
> ...


So Yellow Cabs in NYC fall into the dangerous category as they were responsible for multiple deaths this week.  So we should ban Yellow Cabs?  Yeah, I know, it is a stupid thought.  Like your thoughts that all semi autos should be banned.  It ain't the tool--the problem is the person who uses it.


----------



## meaner gene (Jun 22, 2022)

Abatis said:


> This concept is explained in the case the Supreme Court used to form its reasoning in _US v Miller_ and where the Court drew its language in _Miller_'s famous paragraph:
> 
> "A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. ​



You have to realize that Miller took the first clause of the 2nd amendment to heart, where Heller totally threw it under the bus.  So the reasoning in Miller is no longer valid once they decided Heller.

Heller threw out "common denence", and kept "unusual".​


----------



## meaner gene (Jun 22, 2022)

Concerned American said:


> Like your thoughts that all semi autos should be banned.  It ain't the tool--the problem is the person who uses it.


Everything is the person and not the tool.  Which is why with other tools, the government makes you prove you can handle the tool safely before they let you have one.


----------



## Abatis (Jun 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, the "dangerous" in the term "dangerous and unusual" must be in excess of that commonly attached to a firearm.



I agree, I would say that the arm must have some inherent dangerousness that is independent of whatever actions are taken by the possessor / user.  What first comes to mind to me would be a weapon that can't be aimed effectively or accurately; a blunderbuss or yes, perhaps even a sawed-off shotgun _could_ fit the description.  

Again though, it is, *AND* . . .  "dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, *and* which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence."

I always think of _Cases v US_, that criticized the _Miller_'s Court's statement that the military usefulness of a sawed-off shotgun "was not within judicial notice" . . .  

_Cases_ said such a conclusion wasn't entirely believable, "because of the well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon".

When one tears into the descriptor "dangerous and unusual [not usual in civilized warfare]" it seems the arms that *can't *be defined that way, far, far outnumber the types than can.


----------



## Abatis (Jun 22, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Alito addressed the "Dangerous and Unusual" argument in Caetano v Massachusetts......



In a concurring opinion that has no legal weight (only Thomas signed on).  

It sounds good and maybe someday that will be elevated to the opinion of the Court, but until then it is just a good narrative.


----------



## Abatis (Jun 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> ​You have to realize that Miller took the first clause of the 2nd amendment to heart, where Heller totally threw it under the bus.  So the reasoning in Miller is no longer valid once they decided Heller.​​Heller threw out "common denence", and kept "unusual".​



No, no & no.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use" for traditionally lawful purposes.
> This contrasts with "dangeroun and unusual" weapons, which are not so protected.


Where the fuck do you get this  shit? Do you just believe everything some guy in a black robe feeds you?

The 2nd Amendment says, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Not a fucking word about something like, "the right to keep and bear commonly used arms shall not be infringed."

Nor does it say, "the right to keep and bear dangerous or unusual weapons may be infringed."  Every gun  is, by definition, dangerous.  The one thing the anti-gun left on this board and in general are correct about is that guns are made to kill - each and every one of them.  They are all dangerous and they are all protected by the 2nd Amendment.

You support the 2nd Amendment about like Joe Biden and Beto O'Rourke support the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, the "dangerous" in the term "dangerous and unusual" must be in excess of that commonly attached to a firearm.


A firearm is deadly.  Please explain the next level of dangerous after deadly.  Perhaps something that steals the soul?  Or perhaps idiocy?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 23, 2022)

Confederate Soldier said:


> So a bigger clip makes an AR more dangerous? Buddy, a bolt action rifle can have just as big of a clip...


I'll overlook the use of the word clip because your heart is in the right place


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 23, 2022)

Abatis said:


> That doesn't tell us anything about what government's powers might be to regulate guns . . .  True, the dangerousness of gun is not really in dispute, but "dangerousness" alone is not the only criteria for hearing government's plea to be afforded a power to restrict an arm's possession and use.
> 
> Here is a short primer on "dangerous and unusual" . . .
> 
> ...



Please share where in Article V of the Constitution it says the a bill passed by Congress, if upheld by the Supreme Court, is one way to amend or otherwise change the Constitution?

In 1939, the Constitution was changed again, this time by the Supreme Court without Congress when, suddenly, it said, "shall not be infringed except for violent felons or for any arm not commonly used in the military."

Then, in 2008 when Scalia said it was just for guns in common use did the Constitution change?  Now it said, "shall not be infringed except for guns not in use in the military and not in common civilian use and other scary shit"?

Through all of the interpretations, from 1934 to 2012, every gun law and every case in front of the Court did not change the words of the Constitution and the Supreme Court doesn't get to make up laws - not legally. 

Are you completely incapable of reading the words yourself?  Cannot you use the google to see what the Founders said and intended?  Are you such a sheep that whatever power and authority the government tells you they have, that is what they have?


Tench Coxe:

_*My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sward 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 have no right to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.*_​


----------



## Abatis (Jun 23, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Are you completely incapable of reading the words yourself?



Do you think the right emanates from those words?



woodwork201 said:


> Tench Coxe:



You deny that the Justice writing a majority opinion of the Supreme Court has the power to declare what the Constitution is, but you think Tench Coxe does?


----------



## Failzero (Jun 23, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> A firearm is deadly.  Please explain the next level of dangerous after deadly.  Perhaps something that steals the soul?  Or perhaps idiocy?


It could be a weapon that only targets Minorities or Alternative lifestyle people 😆


----------



## Confederate Soldier (Jun 23, 2022)

Ms. Turquoise said:


> "The AR is sexier though". Really? An instrument of death is "sexy"?




Yes. Yes it is. So are Tigers. So are knives. So are Vipers. So are women.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 23, 2022)

Confederate Soldier said:


> Yes. Yes it is. So are Tigers. So are knives. So are Vipers. So are women.


Steve McQueen too


----------



## Ms. Turquoise (Jun 23, 2022)

Confederate Soldier said:


> Yes. Yes it is. So are Tigers. So are knives. So are Vipers. So are women.


To each his own. OK.


----------



## Flash (Jun 23, 2022)

My ARs are sure "in common use".  I took three of them to the range this morning and shot them.  You can't get more common use than that, can you?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 23, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Do you think the right emanates from those words?
> 
> 
> 
> You deny that the Justice writing a majority opinion of the Supreme Court has the power to declare what the Constitution is, but you think Tench Coxe does?


The right exists whether or not there's a 2nd Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Tench Coxe describes the commonly held view of the Founders.  The Constitution means today what it meant in 1789.  Or do you believe in the living constitution that the meaning adapts to the time and the wishes of government?

In almost every court ruling, some justices vote one way and some justices go the other.  Do you believe that it's the vote that defines the meaning of the Constitution or is it the original intent that defines the meaning? 

For instance, in Heller, the Court correctly ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and included more than just use by the militia.  Had Roberts ruled with the minority and Heller had lost his case, and Scalia's statement that the right was an individual right including for self-defense was now just the dissent, would that change the meaning of the Constitution?  Would you then be arguing that Stevens was correct and the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of arming the militia when called up and that owning guns for any other use, explicitly including hunting, sporting activities, and self-defense, could be banned?

There is no doubt that the Supreme Court Justices are smart men and women and, for the most part, well studied on the Constitution and it's original intent.  Even so, in virtually every case, some of them get it wrong and some of them get it right.  And in most cases both sides probably get some parts of their side wrong and some parts of their side right. 

Considering that we all agree, I hope, that the Justices are human and they make mistakes, then from a constitutional perspective we should consider what they say, what both sides say.  It is the Constitution that defines what it means and you should be smart enough to consider the evidence and judge it for yourself without simply saying some guy in a black robe told you so.   Are you smart enough to do that?  Can you defend using the Constitution as your main proof, even if using the words of the justices for clarity, that the government has the right to infringe the right to keep and bear some arms?  Or against some people?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Where the fuck do you get this  shit? Do you just believe everything some guy in a black robe feeds you?


You can disagree, it just makes you wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> A firearm is deadly.  Please explain the next level of dangerous after deadly.


It lies somwhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> It lies somwhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.


Yep... We can always count on the gun controllers to jump to nuclear weapons.  You just prove that you are no less of a gun controller than the other leftists.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Yep... We can always count on the gun controllers to jump to nuclear weapons.  You just prove that you are no less of a gun controller than the other leftists.


You -clearly- are not reading for content or comprehension.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 26, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You -clearly- are not reading for content or comprehension.


----------



## Flash (Jun 26, 2022)




----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 26, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You -clearly- are not reading for content or comprehension.



You claimed that dangerous weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, remember Gun Controller?

Here's the whole conversation.  Explain to me about content or comprehension.  You jumped from guns to nukes.  Otherwise, explain which arms, in between guns and nukes, that you suggest are not protected by "shall not be infringed".



M14 Shooter said:


> The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use" for traditionally lawful purposes.
> This contrasts with "dangeroun and unusual" weapons, which are not so protected.





M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, the "dangerous" in the term "dangerous and unusual" must be in excess of that commonly attached to a firearm.





woodwork201 said:


> A firearm is deadly.  Please explain the next level of dangerous after deadly.  Perhaps something that steals the soul?  Or perhaps idiocy?





M14 Shooter said:


> It lies somwhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.





woodwork201 said:


> Yep... We can always count on the gun controllers to jump to nuclear weapons.  You just prove that you are no less of a gun controller than the other leftists.





M14 Shooter said:


> You -clearly- are not reading for content or comprehension.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 27, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You claimed that dangerous weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, remember Gun Controller?


Read carefully.
I said "dangerous and unusual"

You agree that all firearms, as they are not "dangerous and unusual", are protected by the 2nd.
You agree that nuclear weapons, being ":dangerous and unusual" are not.

Thus, the "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
Just like I said.
How am I wrong?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Read carefully.
> I said "dangerous and unusual"
> 
> You agree that all firearms, as they are not "dangerous and unusual", are protected by the 2nd.
> ...


What's between firearms and nuclear weapons?  What is it that you and Scalia want to restrict?  You still won't answer.  But you already admitted to being a gun controller because you stated that arms not in common use are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

That means that if a new style handgun is invented  tomorrow, it can be banned before the end of the day because it's not yet in common use.  No need to ban dangerous because it's already unusual.

Can you share a link to where you got your revised edition of the Bill of Rights with the "shall not be infringed unless unusual or dangerous" version of the 2nd Amendment?  I only have the 1791 edition that doesn't have those modern revisions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 27, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> What's between firearms and nuclear weapons?


Allow me to quote myself:
"Thus, the "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons."
How am I wrong?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 27, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> A firearm is deadly.  Please explain the next level of dangerous after deadly.  Perhaps something that steals the soul?  Or perhaps idiocy?


Perhaps something like a Nambu pistol that was as dangerous to the user as it was to the target?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Allow me to quote myself:
> "Thus, the "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons."
> How am I wrong?


So you won't say what it is that you want to ban.  Got it, gun controller.

What about those weapons not in common use?  You also said, directly, that they're not protected and you and Scalia say it with "dangerous and unusual".


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 27, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So you won't say what it is that you want to ban.  Got it, gun controller.


Let me know when you can tell me how I am wrong.
Thanks.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 27, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Perhaps something like a Nambu pistol that was as dangerous to the user as it was to the target?



Interesting thought.

Reminds me of a certain moderator here who said guns that are too safe should be regulated.  Or guns with ammunition that is too light including 5.56 mm which would include all all hand guns.

M14 Shooter wants to ban dangerous weapons and others want to ban all the safe ones... And these people pretend to be supporters of the 2nd Amendment.  We're pretty much screwed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 27, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> M14 Shooter wants...


... you to address, rather that childishly avoid, his question.
The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
How am I wrong?       
Well?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Let me know when you can tell me how I am wrong.
> Thanks.


I asked you first what weapons you would ban.  But I can tell you where you're wrong. I asked you for  your revised edition of the Bill of Rights.  The one used by the Courts says shall not be infringed and doesn't have the "except for dangerous and unusual weapons".  That's where you're wrong.  You're not using the legal edition of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 27, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I asked you first....


Very 2nd grade of you.
The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
How am I wrong?       
Well?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> ... you to address, rather that childishly avoid, his question.
> The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
> How am I wrong?
> Well?



Where the line is drawn is not the question, is it? So you aren't even willing to stand up for your gun control; you're just willing to do it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 27, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Where the line is drawn is not the question, is it?


The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
How am I wrong?       
Well?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
> How am I wrong?
> Well?


Well, I'm not going to play this game that no matter how I tell you you're wrong all you do is respond with asking how you're wrong.  This is diversion from the fact that you are a gun controller and that you like gun control that you like, even if there's some gun control that you don't like.  It's diversion that you do not support the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution and believe that the 2nd Amendment only covers commonly used guns and that you believe that any new model gun type can be banned. 

You're a gun-controller.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 27, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Well, I'm not going to play this game...


Because you know you'll have to agree with me.
Because you know I'm right.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because you know you'll have to agree with me.
> Because you know I'm right.


Have I mentioned lately that you're a fucking idiot?

Agree with you on what?  You haven't offered any evidence of anything at all.  You just keep posting stupid one-liners that don't say a thing.


----------



## Missourian (Jun 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The problem I have with the phrase, "in common use," is the way the left will work to take guns out of "common use," so they can ban them.......they think long term...


Considering I have my Great Grandad's Winchester 1894 from 1935... they'll have to be thinking long,  long,  loooooong term if that's their plan.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 28, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Have I mentioned lately that you're a fucking idiot?
> Agree with you on what?  You haven't offered any evidence of anything at all.  You just keep posting stupid one-liners that don't say a thing.


Lets recap:
I said:
_The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons._
I asked you:
_How am I wrong?    _ 

Well?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 28, 2022)

Missourian said:


> Considering I have my Great Grandad's Winchester 1894 from 1935... they'll have to be thinking long,  long,  loooooong term if that's their plan.


423,000,000 guns in the US
Lets say they get 1000 guns a day.
365,000 guns a year.
In 500 years there will still be 240,000,000 guns in the US
That's -really- long term.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> 423,000,000 guns in the US
> Lets say they get 1000 guns a day.
> 365,000 guns a year.
> In 500 years there will still be 240,000,000 guns in the US
> That's -really- long term.




You forget that they also use population subtraction to their leftist equation........ the residents of mass graves don't usually keep their guns....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You forget that they also use population subtraction to their leftist equation........ the residents of mass graves don't usually keep their guns....


-They- will run out of people first.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You forget that they also use population subtraction to their leftist equation........ the residents of mass graves don't usually keep their guns....


We can Geo Cache them for others prior to our death killing 2 and wounding 3 of the initial stacks comin in


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 28, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Lets recap:
> I said:
> _The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons._
> I asked you:
> ...


It's an idiotic question.  There is no dangerous and unusual line in the Constitution; the line doesn't exist, gun controller.  Tell where the line comes from and what weapons you believe fall into that category, gun controller.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 28, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> 423,000,000 guns in the US
> Lets say they get 1000 guns a day.
> 365,000 guns a year.
> In 500 years there will still be 240,000,000 guns in the US
> That's -really- long term.


A thousand guns a day?  There are over 61 million police interactions in the US in a year.  If teams of 10 go gun hunting, there would easily be 6 million based on current rates of getting out from behind the sign and doing their job.  Add the feds and the guard and the army.  

And, then again, they won't have to start with every gun; they start with those who own the most, those who have multiple ARs, those who post about supporting the 2nd Amendment on gun forums (don't worry; you're safe) and work their way down.

And then figure in all of the Fudds who will just line up and turn in their guns as was done in the UK and Australia.  You, gun controller, are not safe in this one; you'll be at the front of the line because the government can do whatever they want and it's constitutional


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You forget that they also use population subtraction to their leftist equation........ the residents of mass graves don't usually keep their guns....


M14 Shooter is coming out more and more as the gun controller that he is.  Gun controllers always deny that the government wants to take our guns and that it's even possible for them to do it.  

There were Jews like that in Germany.  Australians like that in Australia.  Russians like that in the Soviet Union... and on and on and on.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy, I wish it was as simple as geocaching... you've probably read this story:





__





						Guns | Sundown at Coffin Rock
					





					www.sweetliberty.org
				




edit: sorry 2aguy; it was failzero's post.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 28, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> It's an idiotic question.


There you go again, unwilling to answer a question because you know to do so honestly negates your position.

The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
How am I wrong?    

C'mon,  You can do it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 28, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> A thousand guns a day?


If that many.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 28, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> There you go again, unwilling to answer a question because you know to do so honestly negates your position.
> 
> The "dangerous and unusual" line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
> How am I wrong?
> ...


Fuck off.  There is no line.  There's no "dangerous or unusual" clause in the Constitution, gun controller. You're a fucking idiot and completely unwilling, because you know you're unable, to defend your claim that dangerous or unusual arms, or arms not in common use, are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 29, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Fuck off.  There is no line.


Now you're just lying to yourself.

You, yourself agree that not every weapon is protected by the 2nd,.
Thus, there must be a line.
That line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
How am I wrong?   

C'mon,  You can do it.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 29, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Now you're just lying to yourself.
> 
> You, yourself agree that not every weapon is protected by the 2nd,.
> Thus, there must be a line.
> ...




The "Bear," part of the 2nd Amendment is a real good indicator of what you can actually own and carry.......


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The "Bear," part of the 2nd Amendment is a real good indicator of what you can actually own and carry.......


Well, gun nuts need to compensate, so they ain't clutching and carrying a penis.

AR-15s should be banned, guns in public should be banned. America needs to clean up it's broken gun culture.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 29, 2022)

Criminals have Guns thus We have Guns to compensate ?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 29, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Well, gun nuts need to compensate, so they ain't clutching and carrying a penis.
> 
> AR-15s should be banned, guns in public should be banned. America needs to clean up it's broken gun culture.




Can you guys explain what it is about the penis that fascinates you so much?

We are discussing firearms....and you guys think penis......

Why is that?


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Can you guys explain what it is about the penis that fascinates you so much?
> 
> We are discussing firearms....and you guys think penis......
> 
> Why is that?


Basically, gun nuts only want guns to compensate. To compensate what's lacking in their pants, to compensate their ego, they need to sound and look macho. The top and bottom of their argument is, "We like guns, fuck off". But they persist with the NRA pamphlet 10 Commandments shite.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> We are discussing firearms....and you guys think penis......


Basically, he only insults to compensate. To compensate what's lacking in his pants, to compensate his ego, he needs to sound and look macho. The top and bottom of his argument is,"I hate guns, fuck off".


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 29, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Basically, gun nuts only want guns to compensate. To compensate what's lacking in their pants, to compensate their ego, they need to sound and look macho. The top and bottom of their argument is, "We like guns, fuck off". But they persist with the NRA pamphlet 10 Commandments shite.




I note to the jury, that the defendant did not answer the question......


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 29, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Basically, he only insults to compensate. To compensate what's lacking in his pants, to compensate his ego, he needs to sound and look macho. The top and bottom of his argument is,"I hate guns, fuck off".


Awe, you didn't get to where you wanted to with your degree. Never mind, low EIQ does that.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jun 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I note to the jury, that the defendant did not answer the question......


Yes, you never do. Just normally pages of copy n' paste.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Can you guys explain what it is about the penis that fascinates you so much?
> 
> We are discussing firearms....and you guys think penis......
> 
> Why is that?


Uncut Heathens are gonna Heathen


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 30, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Fuck off.  There is no line.


Now you're just lying to yourself.
You, yourself agree that not every weapon is protected by the 2nd,.
Thus, there must be a line.
That line must be somewhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
How am I wrong?   
C'mon,  You can do it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 30, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Now you're just lying to yourself.
> 
> You, yourself agree that not every weapon is protected by the 2nd,.
> Thus, there must be a line.
> ...


You're wrong.  I don't believe that at all; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  There's no "except" in there.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 30, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The "Bear," part of the 2nd Amendment is a real good indicator of what you can actually own and carry.......


Wrong.  Cannon and artillery, even warships, were in private hands and are protected by the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 30, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You're wrong.  I don't believe that at all;


So...  you believe individual citizens have the right to own and use nuclear weapons.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 4, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You're wrong.  I don't believe that at all;


So...  you believe individual citizens have the right to own and use nuclear weapons.
Correct?


----------

