Gun Control Has Only 1 Motive - Confiscation of All Guns from Law Abiding Citizens

[westwall]

AR-15s?
Semi-Auto rifles?

Yes and no

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, banning AR15s; this is especially the case if you do not believe semi-auto rifles should be banned.

And, it doesn't matter. SCOTUS precedent stipulates that only firearms with a military purpose are covered by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

AR-15s?
Semi-Auto rifles?

Yes and no

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, banning AR15s; this is especially the case if you do not believe semi-auto rifles should be banned.

How soon do you conveniently forget.

A Hunting Rifle is designed from the ground up to hunt, put meat on the table. A home or personal defense weapon is designed from the ground up for personal protection. Their function is determined by their intended use. And their design is determined by their intended use. In a rifles or Shotguns case, there is usually a bit of aesthetics that goes into it like cosmetics that has nothing to do with it's function. Even a plain jane rifle has some kind of aesthetics involved.

A weapon of war has zero aesthetics involved. It's function isn't about hunting, personal protection at all. Every feature and design feature is about how it functions on a battlefield. The best weapon of war rifle in the world is designed so that an 18 year old kid, scared completely out of his mind, with minimum training, under fire, can operate the rifle and dispense as many rounds as fast and accurately as humanly possible. And that includes one handed reloading of mags with large capacities. It has to be light to be able to be carried for hours and days on end. It has to be able to accept many different accessories. There is no room for aesthetics. It's function and design is for the battlefield, period. Just because it can be used in a limited form for other things doesn't make it anything other than a weapon of war. I can use a crescent wrench to hammer in a nail but that doesn't make it a hammer. The weapon described was designed in the late 50s by Stoner and hasn't changed even one bit. Yes, it's been upgraded, but from the first model introduced to the Maylasians in 1958 to the brand new M-16A4 ALL parts are interchangeable. While it's not the number one weapon of war, it is number 2 and is recognized as the best of the best. And ALL versions share the same traits are are just as deadly. The ONLY part that is not interchangeable between the new M-16A4 and ALL the AR-15s is the lower receiver which determines if it can be fired 3 shot burst or not. And in combat, 3 shot bursts are found to be worthless just like full auto was found to be worthless as well. Meaning, ALL versions of the ARs (regardless of what you call it and even an M-16 is an AR) are equally deadly and all have the same functions. Meaning, they are weapons of war.

Now, I don't think it's the job of the Federals to make the determination on the AR. The 2nd A covers that. They Feds needs to keep their noses out of it unless it becomes a national public safety issue which it is not. But a State, County, City or Town can determine that it is in their best interest to regulate any firearm and it's perfectly legal as per the most recent Court Rulings. Don't look for the full act of the Brady Act to return. But the courts have determined that certain firearms do fall under the guise of being able to regulated and, in fact, banned. But the local governments have to be very specific about it. They can't say things like "Semi-Automatic" or "Assault Rifle" but they can word it specifically like "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and that will stand up in court. And it has many times. The Supreme Court avoids ruling on this like the Plague mainly because it's not within their purview.

Cases in point

Oregon has a law on it's books that reads "Assault Rifles". I have no idea why that hasn't been challenged. It's not worth the ink it was drawn up with. In other locations, the Courts have already said it's too general of a term. Are you gunnutters leaving it around just so you can have bitching rights? Get the damned thing off the books already.

California and Boston has a law on the books that bans "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and the courts have ruled that as constitutional. It's specific and to the point. The old cases of "Semi-Autos" were bounced long ago as was the "Assault Rifles" but that one stands. As the Federal Judge Young said, if you don't like it, MOVE.

Then there are the 10 round and 5 round capacity limits. Colorado was the first to try and pass a 10 round but that was bounced in a federal court so on that very day, a 15 round limit was introduced and it was approved by the very same court in 2013. California tried to pass a 10 round capacity and today has a 15 round capacity limit. The Judge on the California case referred back to Heller V where he wrote that while 10 was unreasonable, 15 or 20 fell under reasonable. Heller set a standard where "Reasonable" is the yardstick on all of this. And it made ALL sides have to be reasonable when making laws including you gun nutters. Heller V DC is the most important Firearms Case that has ever been done. All others refer back to it.

Enough?

 

[M14 Shooter]

AR-15s?
Semi-Auto rifles?

Yes and no

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, banning AR15s; this is especially the case if you do not believe semi-auto rifles should be banned.

And, it doesn't matter. SCOTUS precedent stipulates that only firearms with a military purpose are covered by the 2nd Amendment.

In Miller.
Heller widened that to all bearable arms, including those commonly used for traditionally lawful purposes.

 

[westwall]

AR-15s?
Semi-Auto rifles?

Yes and no

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, banning AR15s; this is especially the case if you do not believe semi-auto rifles should be banned.

How soon do you conveniently forget.

A Hunting Rifle is designed from the ground up to hunt, put meat on the table. A home or personal defense weapon is designed from the ground up for personal protection. Their function is determined by their intended use. And their design is determined by their intended use. In a rifles or Shotguns case, there is usually a bit of aesthetics that goes into it like cosmetics that has nothing to do with it's function. Even a plain jane rifle has some kind of aesthetics involved.

A weapon of war has zero aesthetics involved. It's function isn't about hunting, personal protection at all. Every feature and design feature is about how it functions on a battlefield. The best weapon of war rifle in the world is designed so that an 18 year old kid, scared completely out of his mind, with minimum training, under fire, can operate the rifle and dispense as many rounds as fast and accurately as humanly possible. And that includes one handed reloading of mags with large capacities. It has to be light to be able to be carried for hours and days on end. It has to be able to accept many different accessories. There is no room for aesthetics. It's function and design is for the battlefield, period. Just because it can be used in a limited form for other things doesn't make it anything other than a weapon of war. I can use a crescent wrench to hammer in a nail but that doesn't make it a hammer. The weapon described was designed in the late 50s by Stoner and hasn't changed even one bit. Yes, it's been upgraded, but from the first model introduced to the Maylasians in 1958 to the brand new M-16A4 ALL parts are interchangeable. While it's not the number one weapon of war, it is number 2 and is recognized as the best of the best. And ALL versions share the same traits are are just as deadly. The ONLY part that is not interchangeable between the new M-16A4 and ALL the AR-15s is the lower receiver which determines if it can be fired 3 shot burst or not. And in combat, 3 shot bursts are found to be worthless just like full auto was found to be worthless as well. Meaning, ALL versions of the ARs (regardless of what you call it and even an M-16 is an AR) are equally deadly and all have the same functions. Meaning, they are weapons of war.

Now, I don't think it's the job of the Federals to make the determination on the AR. The 2nd A covers that. They Feds needs to keep their noses out of it unless it becomes a national public safety issue which it is not. But a State, County, City or Town can determine that it is in their best interest to regulate any firearm and it's perfectly legal as per the most recent Court Rulings. Don't look for the full act of the Brady Act to return. But the courts have determined that certain firearms do fall under the guise of being able to regulated and, in fact, banned. But the local governments have to be very specific about it. They can't say things like "Semi-Automatic" or "Assault Rifle" but they can word it specifically like "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and that will stand up in court. And it has many times. The Supreme Court avoids ruling on this like the Plague mainly because it's not within their purview.

Cases in point

Oregon has a law on it's books that reads "Assault Rifles". I have no idea why that hasn't been challenged. It's not worth the ink it was drawn up with. In other locations, the Courts have already said it's too general of a term. Are you gunnutters leaving it around just so you can have bitching rights? Get the damned thing off the books already.

California and Boston has a law on the books that bans "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and the courts have ruled that as constitutional. It's specific and to the point. The old cases of "Semi-Autos" were bounced long ago as was the "Assault Rifles" but that one stands. As the Federal Judge Young said, if you don't like it, MOVE.

Then there are the 10 round and 5 round capacity limits. Colorado was the first to try and pass a 10 round but that was bounced in a federal court so on that very day, a 15 round limit was introduced and it was approved by the very same court in 2013. California tried to pass a 10 round capacity and today has a 15 round capacity limit. The Judge on the California case referred back to Heller V where he wrote that while 10 was unreasonable, 15 or 20 fell under reasonable. Heller set a standard where "Reasonable" is the yardstick on all of this. And it made ALL sides have to be reasonable when making laws including you gun nutters. Heller V DC is the most important Firearms Case that has ever been done. All others refer back to it.

Enough?

US V Miller, also known as the National Firearms Act ruling held that a sawed off shotgun could be banned because it had "no foreseeable military purpose".

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

AR-15s?
Semi-Auto rifles?

Yes and no

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, banning AR15s; this is especially the case if you do not believe semi-auto rifles should be banned.

How soon do you conveniently forget.

A Hunting Rifle is designed from the ground up to hunt, put meat on the table. A home or personal defense weapon is designed from the ground up for personal protection. Their function is determined by their intended use. And their design is determined by their intended use. In a rifles or Shotguns case, there is usually a bit of aesthetics that goes into it like cosmetics that has nothing to do with it's function. Even a plain jane rifle has some kind of aesthetics involved.

A weapon of war has zero aesthetics involved. It's function isn't about hunting, personal protection at all. Every feature and design feature is about how it functions on a battlefield. The best weapon of war rifle in the world is designed so that an 18 year old kid, scared completely out of his mind, with minimum training, under fire, can operate the rifle and dispense as many rounds as fast and accurately as humanly possible. And that includes one handed reloading of mags with large capacities. It has to be light to be able to be carried for hours and days on end. It has to be able to accept many different accessories. There is no room for aesthetics. It's function and design is for the battlefield, period. Just because it can be used in a limited form for other things doesn't make it anything other than a weapon of war. I can use a crescent wrench to hammer in a nail but that doesn't make it a hammer. The weapon described was designed in the late 50s by Stoner and hasn't changed even one bit. Yes, it's been upgraded, but from the first model introduced to the Maylasians in 1958 to the brand new M-16A4 ALL parts are interchangeable. While it's not the number one weapon of war, it is number 2 and is recognized as the best of the best. And ALL versions share the same traits are are just as deadly. The ONLY part that is not interchangeable between the new M-16A4 and ALL the AR-15s is the lower receiver which determines if it can be fired 3 shot burst or not. And in combat, 3 shot bursts are found to be worthless just like full auto was found to be worthless as well. Meaning, ALL versions of the ARs (regardless of what you call it and even an M-16 is an AR) are equally deadly and all have the same functions. Meaning, they are weapons of war.

Now, I don't think it's the job of the Federals to make the determination on the AR. The 2nd A covers that. They Feds needs to keep their noses out of it unless it becomes a national public safety issue which it is not. But a State, County, City or Town can determine that it is in their best interest to regulate any firearm and it's perfectly legal as per the most recent Court Rulings. Don't look for the full act of the Brady Act to return. But the courts have determined that certain firearms do fall under the guise of being able to regulated and, in fact, banned. But the local governments have to be very specific about it. They can't say things like "Semi-Automatic" or "Assault Rifle" but they can word it specifically like "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and that will stand up in court. And it has many times. The Supreme Court avoids ruling on this like the Plague mainly because it's not within their purview.

Cases in point

Oregon has a law on it's books that reads "Assault Rifles". I have no idea why that hasn't been challenged. It's not worth the ink it was drawn up with. In other locations, the Courts have already said it's too general of a term. Are you gunnutters leaving it around just so you can have bitching rights? Get the damned thing off the books already.

California and Boston has a law on the books that bans "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and the courts have ruled that as constitutional. It's specific and to the point. The old cases of "Semi-Autos" were bounced long ago as was the "Assault Rifles" but that one stands. As the Federal Judge Young said, if you don't like it, MOVE.

Then there are the 10 round and 5 round capacity limits. Colorado was the first to try and pass a 10 round but that was bounced in a federal court so on that very day, a 15 round limit was introduced and it was approved by the very same court in 2013. California tried to pass a 10 round capacity and today has a 15 round capacity limit. The Judge on the California case referred back to Heller V where he wrote that while 10 was unreasonable, 15 or 20 fell under reasonable. Heller set a standard where "Reasonable" is the yardstick on all of this. And it made ALL sides have to be reasonable when making laws including you gun nutters. Heller V DC is the most important Firearms Case that has ever been done. All others refer back to it.

Enough?

US V Miller, also known as the National Firearms Act ruling held that a sawed off shotgun could be banned because it had "no foreseeable military purpose".

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

And using Heller, it can be ruled that a saw off shotgun has absolutely zero use for self defense, hunting or anything other than mauling and crippling lots of people in each shot. Using the reasonable ruling that has been founded with Heller, the Saw off Shotgun has zero civilian nor military uses. It's a weapon of terror only. Miller had the right idea only the wrong reasoning.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

AR-15s?
Semi-Auto rifles?

Yes and no

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, banning AR15s; this is especially the case if you do not believe semi-auto rifles should be banned.

And, it doesn't matter. SCOTUS precedent stipulates that only firearms with a military purpose are covered by the 2nd Amendment.

In Miller.
Heller widened that to all bearable arms, including those commonly used for traditionally lawful purposes.

Heller only covered hand guns and introduced "Reasonable" into the equation. Bot Heller and DC were demanding unreasonable results. The ONLY reason SCOTUS took it up was that DC has no State Federal Court since it's not a state. And it introduced reason. Neither DC nor Heller got exactly what they wanted but Heller V DC has been used since for many rulings introducing common sense and reasonable laws. Miller V would not fall under the "Reasonable" part of Heller but the results would be the same.

Edit: One more thing. The Saw Off Shotgun is NOT banned. With the proper licensing and storage, you can own one.

 

[francoHFW]

AR-15s?
Semi-Auto rifles?

Yes and no

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, banning AR15s; this is especially the case if you do not believe semi-auto rifles should be banned.

How soon do you conveniently forget.

A Hunting Rifle is designed from the ground up to hunt, put meat on the table. A home or personal defense weapon is designed from the ground up for personal protection. Their function is determined by their intended use. And their design is determined by their intended use. In a rifles or Shotguns case, there is usually a bit of aesthetics that goes into it like cosmetics that has nothing to do with it's function. Even a plain jane rifle has some kind of aesthetics involved.

A weapon of war has zero aesthetics involved. It's function isn't about hunting, personal protection at all. Every feature and design feature is about how it functions on a battlefield. The best weapon of war rifle in the world is designed so that an 18 year old kid, scared completely out of his mind, with minimum training, under fire, can operate the rifle and dispense as many rounds as fast and accurately as humanly possible. And that includes one handed reloading of mags with large capacities. It has to be light to be able to be carried for hours and days on end. It has to be able to accept many different accessories. There is no room for aesthetics. It's function and design is for the battlefield, period. Just because it can be used in a limited form for other things doesn't make it anything other than a weapon of war. I can use a crescent wrench to hammer in a nail but that doesn't make it a hammer. The weapon described was designed in the late 50s by Stoner and hasn't changed even one bit. Yes, it's been upgraded, but from the first model introduced to the Maylasians in 1958 to the brand new M-16A4 ALL parts are interchangeable. While it's not the number one weapon of war, it is number 2 and is recognized as the best of the best. And ALL versions share the same traits are are just as deadly. The ONLY part that is not interchangeable between the new M-16A4 and ALL the AR-15s is the lower receiver which determines if it can be fired 3 shot burst or not. And in combat, 3 shot bursts are found to be worthless just like full auto was found to be worthless as well. Meaning, ALL versions of the ARs (regardless of what you call it and even an M-16 is an AR) are equally deadly and all have the same functions. Meaning, they are weapons of war.

Now, I don't think it's the job of the Federals to make the determination on the AR. The 2nd A covers that. They Feds needs to keep their noses out of it unless it becomes a national public safety issue which it is not. But a State, County, City or Town can determine that it is in their best interest to regulate any firearm and it's perfectly legal as per the most recent Court Rulings. Don't look for the full act of the Brady Act to return. But the courts have determined that certain firearms do fall under the guise of being able to regulated and, in fact, banned. But the local governments have to be very specific about it. They can't say things like "Semi-Automatic" or "Assault Rifle" but they can word it specifically like "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and that will stand up in court. And it has many times. The Supreme Court avoids ruling on this like the Plague mainly because it's not within their purview.

Cases in point

Oregon has a law on it's books that reads "Assault Rifles". I have no idea why that hasn't been challenged. It's not worth the ink it was drawn up with. In other locations, the Courts have already said it's too general of a term. Are you gunnutters leaving it around just so you can have bitching rights? Get the damned thing off the books already.

California and Boston has a law on the books that bans "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and the courts have ruled that as constitutional. It's specific and to the point. The old cases of "Semi-Autos" were bounced long ago as was the "Assault Rifles" but that one stands. As the Federal Judge Young said, if you don't like it, MOVE.

Then there are the 10 round and 5 round capacity limits. Colorado was the first to try and pass a 10 round but that was bounced in a federal court so on that very day, a 15 round limit was introduced and it was approved by the very same court in 2013. California tried to pass a 10 round capacity and today has a 15 round capacity limit. The Judge on the California case referred back to Heller V where he wrote that while 10 was unreasonable, 15 or 20 fell under reasonable. Heller set a standard where "Reasonable" is the yardstick on all of this. And it made ALL sides have to be reasonable when making laws including you gun nutters. Heller V DC is the most important Firearms Case that has ever been done. All others refer back to it.

Enough?

Blah blah blah. Military style weapons drive wackos crazy and will be illegal to buy or make some time soon in the future. Ditto giant clips. And there will be background checks. I am not a gun nut so I don't give a damn about all your knowledge and missing the forest for the trees.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Blah blah blah.

^^^
An apt characterization of your content.

When you can demonstrate the necessity for, and the efficacy of, a ban on AR15s, let us know.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

1 is military style that drives wackos crazy and the other is a hunting rifle duh....

How does one define "military style" and distinguish it from "hunting" or any other "style" weapon?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Blah blah blah. Military style weapons drive wackos crazy and will be illegal to buy or make some time soon in the future. Ditto giant clips. And there will be background checks. I am not a gun nut so I don't give a damn about all your knowledge and missing the forest for the trees.

So, which weapons are "military style" and why? You can't just throw that ambiguous word around and expect people to comply.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

US V Miller, also known as the National Firearms Act ruling held that a sawed off shotgun could be banned because it had "no foreseeable military purpose".

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

That's also precedent for shooting down FrancoHFW's "military style" ban, whatever the fuck that is. He won't tell us.

It is also precedent for shooting down the Hughes Amendment, despite the ruling in Heller.

.

 

[westwall]

AR-15s?
Semi-Auto rifles?

Yes and no

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, banning AR15s; this is especially the case if you do not believe semi-auto rifles should be banned.

How soon do you conveniently forget.

A Hunting Rifle is designed from the ground up to hunt, put meat on the table. A home or personal defense weapon is designed from the ground up for personal protection. Their function is determined by their intended use. And their design is determined by their intended use. In a rifles or Shotguns case, there is usually a bit of aesthetics that goes into it like cosmetics that has nothing to do with it's function. Even a plain jane rifle has some kind of aesthetics involved.

A weapon of war has zero aesthetics involved. It's function isn't about hunting, personal protection at all. Every feature and design feature is about how it functions on a battlefield. The best weapon of war rifle in the world is designed so that an 18 year old kid, scared completely out of his mind, with minimum training, under fire, can operate the rifle and dispense as many rounds as fast and accurately as humanly possible. And that includes one handed reloading of mags with large capacities. It has to be light to be able to be carried for hours and days on end. It has to be able to accept many different accessories. There is no room for aesthetics. It's function and design is for the battlefield, period. Just because it can be used in a limited form for other things doesn't make it anything other than a weapon of war. I can use a crescent wrench to hammer in a nail but that doesn't make it a hammer. The weapon described was designed in the late 50s by Stoner and hasn't changed even one bit. Yes, it's been upgraded, but from the first model introduced to the Maylasians in 1958 to the brand new M-16A4 ALL parts are interchangeable. While it's not the number one weapon of war, it is number 2 and is recognized as the best of the best. And ALL versions share the same traits are are just as deadly. The ONLY part that is not interchangeable between the new M-16A4 and ALL the AR-15s is the lower receiver which determines if it can be fired 3 shot burst or not. And in combat, 3 shot bursts are found to be worthless just like full auto was found to be worthless as well. Meaning, ALL versions of the ARs (regardless of what you call it and even an M-16 is an AR) are equally deadly and all have the same functions. Meaning, they are weapons of war.

Now, I don't think it's the job of the Federals to make the determination on the AR. The 2nd A covers that. They Feds needs to keep their noses out of it unless it becomes a national public safety issue which it is not. But a State, County, City or Town can determine that it is in their best interest to regulate any firearm and it's perfectly legal as per the most recent Court Rulings. Don't look for the full act of the Brady Act to return. But the courts have determined that certain firearms do fall under the guise of being able to regulated and, in fact, banned. But the local governments have to be very specific about it. They can't say things like "Semi-Automatic" or "Assault Rifle" but they can word it specifically like "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and that will stand up in court. And it has many times. The Supreme Court avoids ruling on this like the Plague mainly because it's not within their purview.

Cases in point

Oregon has a law on it's books that reads "Assault Rifles". I have no idea why that hasn't been challenged. It's not worth the ink it was drawn up with. In other locations, the Courts have already said it's too general of a term. Are you gunnutters leaving it around just so you can have bitching rights? Get the damned thing off the books already.

California and Boston has a law on the books that bans "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and the courts have ruled that as constitutional. It's specific and to the point. The old cases of "Semi-Autos" were bounced long ago as was the "Assault Rifles" but that one stands. As the Federal Judge Young said, if you don't like it, MOVE.

Then there are the 10 round and 5 round capacity limits. Colorado was the first to try and pass a 10 round but that was bounced in a federal court so on that very day, a 15 round limit was introduced and it was approved by the very same court in 2013. California tried to pass a 10 round capacity and today has a 15 round capacity limit. The Judge on the California case referred back to Heller V where he wrote that while 10 was unreasonable, 15 or 20 fell under reasonable. Heller set a standard where "Reasonable" is the yardstick on all of this. And it made ALL sides have to be reasonable when making laws including you gun nutters. Heller V DC is the most important Firearms Case that has ever been done. All others refer back to it.

Enough?

Blah blah blah. Military style weapons drive wackos crazy and will be illegal to buy or make some time soon in the future. Ditto giant clips. And there will be background checks. I am not a gun nut so I don't give a damn about all your knowledge and missing the forest for the trees.

No, moronic wackos, like you, are wackos. Weapons don't make you who you are.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How soon do you conveniently forget.

A Hunting Rifle is designed from the ground up to hunt, put meat on the table. A home or personal defense weapon is designed from the ground up for personal protection. Their function is determined by their intended use. And their design is determined by their intended use. In a rifles or Shotguns case, there is usually a bit of aesthetics that goes into it like cosmetics that has nothing to do with it's function. Even a plain jane rifle has some kind of aesthetics involved.

Wrong on all accounts.

A firearm is designed to send a project tile out the end of the barrel at a high rate of speed. That is it. Nothing more.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

AR-15s?
Semi-Auto rifles?

Yes and no

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, banning AR15s; this is especially the case if you do not believe semi-auto rifles should be banned.

How soon do you conveniently forget.

A Hunting Rifle is designed from the ground up to hunt, put meat on the table. A home or personal defense weapon is designed from the ground up for personal protection. Their function is determined by their intended use. And their design is determined by their intended use. In a rifles or Shotguns case, there is usually a bit of aesthetics that goes into it like cosmetics that has nothing to do with it's function. Even a plain jane rifle has some kind of aesthetics involved.

A weapon of war has zero aesthetics involved. It's function isn't about hunting, personal protection at all. Every feature and design feature is about how it functions on a battlefield. The best weapon of war rifle in the world is designed so that an 18 year old kid, scared completely out of his mind, with minimum training, under fire, can operate the rifle and dispense as many rounds as fast and accurately as humanly possible. And that includes one handed reloading of mags with large capacities. It has to be light to be able to be carried for hours and days on end. It has to be able to accept many different accessories. There is no room for aesthetics. It's function and design is for the battlefield, period. Just because it can be used in a limited form for other things doesn't make it anything other than a weapon of war. I can use a crescent wrench to hammer in a nail but that doesn't make it a hammer. The weapon described was designed in the late 50s by Stoner and hasn't changed even one bit. Yes, it's been upgraded, but from the first model introduced to the Maylasians in 1958 to the brand new M-16A4 ALL parts are interchangeable. While it's not the number one weapon of war, it is number 2 and is recognized as the best of the best. And ALL versions share the same traits are are just as deadly. The ONLY part that is not interchangeable between the new M-16A4 and ALL the AR-15s is the lower receiver which determines if it can be fired 3 shot burst or not. And in combat, 3 shot bursts are found to be worthless just like full auto was found to be worthless as well. Meaning, ALL versions of the ARs (regardless of what you call it and even an M-16 is an AR) are equally deadly and all have the same functions. Meaning, they are weapons of war.

Now, I don't think it's the job of the Federals to make the determination on the AR. The 2nd A covers that. They Feds needs to keep their noses out of it unless it becomes a national public safety issue which it is not. But a State, County, City or Town can determine that it is in their best interest to regulate any firearm and it's perfectly legal as per the most recent Court Rulings. Don't look for the full act of the Brady Act to return. But the courts have determined that certain firearms do fall under the guise of being able to regulated and, in fact, banned. But the local governments have to be very specific about it. They can't say things like "Semi-Automatic" or "Assault Rifle" but they can word it specifically like "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and that will stand up in court. And it has many times. The Supreme Court avoids ruling on this like the Plague mainly because it's not within their purview.

Cases in point

Oregon has a law on it's books that reads "Assault Rifles". I have no idea why that hasn't been challenged. It's not worth the ink it was drawn up with. In other locations, the Courts have already said it's too general of a term. Are you gunnutters leaving it around just so you can have bitching rights? Get the damned thing off the books already.

California and Boston has a law on the books that bans "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and the courts have ruled that as constitutional. It's specific and to the point. The old cases of "Semi-Autos" were bounced long ago as was the "Assault Rifles" but that one stands. As the Federal Judge Young said, if you don't like it, MOVE.

Then there are the 10 round and 5 round capacity limits. Colorado was the first to try and pass a 10 round but that was bounced in a federal court so on that very day, a 15 round limit was introduced and it was approved by the very same court in 2013. California tried to pass a 10 round capacity and today has a 15 round capacity limit. The Judge on the California case referred back to Heller V where he wrote that while 10 was unreasonable, 15 or 20 fell under reasonable. Heller set a standard where "Reasonable" is the yardstick on all of this. And it made ALL sides have to be reasonable when making laws including you gun nutters. Heller V DC is the most important Firearms Case that has ever been done. All others refer back to it.

Enough?

Blah blah blah. Military style weapons drive wackos crazy and will be illegal to buy or make some time soon in the future. Ditto giant clips. And there will be background checks. I am not a gun nut so I don't give a damn about all your knowledge and missing the forest for the trees.

Ah, the other side of the coin. No firearms can be "Banned". But the can be regulated. Even if the AR is considered a Military only weapon, if you have the right licenses you can own them. You make about as much sense as the gunnutters do.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ah, the other side of the coin. No firearms can be "Banned". But the can be regulated. Even if the AR is considered a Military only weapon, if you have the right licenses you can own them. You make about as much sense as the gunnutters do.

William J. Hughes disagrees. See 18 USC 922(o):

(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Blah blah blah. Military style weapons drive wackos crazy and will be illegal to buy or make some time soon in the future. Ditto giant clips. And there will be background checks. I am not a gun nut so I don't give a damn about all your knowledge and missing the forest for the trees.

So, which weapons are "military style" and why? You can't just throw that ambiguous word around and expect people to comply.

"Hunting Rifle"

"Military Style"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

M-24 (military rifle)

Has this hunting rifle ever been used by the military.


.

 

[francoHFW]

AR-15s?
Semi-Auto rifles?

Yes and no

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, banning AR15s; this is especially the case if you do not believe semi-auto rifles should be banned.

How soon do you conveniently forget.

A Hunting Rifle is designed from the ground up to hunt, put meat on the table. A home or personal defense weapon is designed from the ground up for personal protection. Their function is determined by their intended use. And their design is determined by their intended use. In a rifles or Shotguns case, there is usually a bit of aesthetics that goes into it like cosmetics that has nothing to do with it's function. Even a plain jane rifle has some kind of aesthetics involved.

A weapon of war has zero aesthetics involved. It's function isn't about hunting, personal protection at all. Every feature and design feature is about how it functions on a battlefield. The best weapon of war rifle in the world is designed so that an 18 year old kid, scared completely out of his mind, with minimum training, under fire, can operate the rifle and dispense as many rounds as fast and accurately as humanly possible. And that includes one handed reloading of mags with large capacities. It has to be light to be able to be carried for hours and days on end. It has to be able to accept many different accessories. There is no room for aesthetics. It's function and design is for the battlefield, period. Just because it can be used in a limited form for other things doesn't make it anything other than a weapon of war. I can use a crescent wrench to hammer in a nail but that doesn't make it a hammer. The weapon described was designed in the late 50s by Stoner and hasn't changed even one bit. Yes, it's been upgraded, but from the first model introduced to the Maylasians in 1958 to the brand new M-16A4 ALL parts are interchangeable. While it's not the number one weapon of war, it is number 2 and is recognized as the best of the best. And ALL versions share the same traits are are just as deadly. The ONLY part that is not interchangeable between the new M-16A4 and ALL the AR-15s is the lower receiver which determines if it can be fired 3 shot burst or not. And in combat, 3 shot bursts are found to be worthless just like full auto was found to be worthless as well. Meaning, ALL versions of the ARs (regardless of what you call it and even an M-16 is an AR) are equally deadly and all have the same functions. Meaning, they are weapons of war.

Now, I don't think it's the job of the Federals to make the determination on the AR. The 2nd A covers that. They Feds needs to keep their noses out of it unless it becomes a national public safety issue which it is not. But a State, County, City or Town can determine that it is in their best interest to regulate any firearm and it's perfectly legal as per the most recent Court Rulings. Don't look for the full act of the Brady Act to return. But the courts have determined that certain firearms do fall under the guise of being able to regulated and, in fact, banned. But the local governments have to be very specific about it. They can't say things like "Semi-Automatic" or "Assault Rifle" but they can word it specifically like "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and that will stand up in court. And it has many times. The Supreme Court avoids ruling on this like the Plague mainly because it's not within their purview.

Cases in point

Oregon has a law on it's books that reads "Assault Rifles". I have no idea why that hasn't been challenged. It's not worth the ink it was drawn up with. In other locations, the Courts have already said it's too general of a term. Are you gunnutters leaving it around just so you can have bitching rights? Get the damned thing off the books already.

California and Boston has a law on the books that bans "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" and the courts have ruled that as constitutional. It's specific and to the point. The old cases of "Semi-Autos" were bounced long ago as was the "Assault Rifles" but that one stands. As the Federal Judge Young said, if you don't like it, MOVE.

Then there are the 10 round and 5 round capacity limits. Colorado was the first to try and pass a 10 round but that was bounced in a federal court so on that very day, a 15 round limit was introduced and it was approved by the very same court in 2013. California tried to pass a 10 round capacity and today has a 15 round capacity limit. The Judge on the California case referred back to Heller V where he wrote that while 10 was unreasonable, 15 or 20 fell under reasonable. Heller set a standard where "Reasonable" is the yardstick on all of this. And it made ALL sides have to be reasonable when making laws including you gun nutters. Heller V DC is the most important Firearms Case that has ever been done. All others refer back to it.

Enough?

Blah blah blah. Military style weapons drive wackos crazy and will be illegal to buy or make some time soon in the future. Ditto giant clips. And there will be background checks. I am not a gun nut so I don't give a damn about all your knowledge and missing the forest for the trees.

Ah, the other side of the coin. No firearms can be "Banned". But the can be regulated. Even if the AR is considered a Military only weapon, if you have the right licenses you can own them. You make about as much sense as the gunnutters do.

Of course arms can be banned.

 

[SmokeALib]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course arms can be banned.

Anything can be done when commies fucks like you are in charge.

That's why every American needs to kill a commie for mommy.

.