The AR15 IS a weapon of war and IS designed to kill people!!!!!

[M14 Shooter]

No military in the world uses AR15's.... they use M-16's and AK 47's for lightweight long guns....

Methinks you missed the point.

 

[Polishprince]

Not everyone needs an AR15 or other large weapons for self defense. But some, like Al Pacino, certainly do.

Let's let the PEOPLE decide what kind of protection they need, instead of having governmental prohibitions on weapons.

 

[Rambunctious]

Methinks you missed the point.

No I think you have... the AR 15 is semi auto... nations don't consider them war ready in any way.... so your headline is wrong....

 

[Ace Nova]

Not just kill people, but kill a lot of people in a short period of time!!!
AND... the 5.56x45 round fired by the AR15 DOES do significantly more trauma than a handgun round -- it's a RIFLE round.

OK?
So what?

AR15 are in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm.
As such, they are "bearable arms"; as they are "bearable arms" they to not fall under the conjunctive "dangerous and unusual" exception
As they are "bearable arms", the right of the people to own and use them for those purposes is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Your whining and crying about "weapon of war", "designed to kill" and "more trauma than a hand gun" cannot be more irrelevant to the above.

And THEN:
The entire point of the 2nd is to make sure the people who would comprise well-regulated militia had access to weapons suitable for service in same - that is, "weapons of war".


Looks like you need to ask for different talking points.

Aren't (just about) all guns designed and made to kill? Whether it's for hunting or protection, almost all firearms are made with the intention to (at the very least) "stop" a living being or in many cases, "kill". (The only firearms that I can think of not made for that intention would be ones designed for target shooting but even those could likely hurt or kill a living being.)

 

[M14 Shooter]

No I think you have... the AR 15 is semi auto... nations don't consider them war ready in any way.... so your headline is wrong....

Read harder.

 

[Dadoalex]

v Bruen says otherwise.

...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Said required demonstration cannot me made.

Can you walk into Dicks and buy a sawed off shotgun?
How about a machine gun?
Hand grenades?
Missile launchers?

No?
Then your response is irrelevant.

 

[Winston]

Not just kill people, but kill a lot of people in a short period of time!!!
AND... the 5.56x45 round fired by the AR15 DOES do significantly more trauma than a handgun round -- it's a RIFLE round.

OK?
So what?

AR15s are in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm.
As such, they are "bearable arms"; as they are "bearable arms" they to not fall under the conjunctive "dangerous and unusual" exception.
As they are "bearable arms", the right of the people to own and use them for those purposes is protected from infringement by the 2nd Amendment.

Your whining and crying about "weapon of war", "designed to kill" and "more trauma than a hand gun" cannot be more irrelevant to the above.

And THEN:
The entire point of the 2nd is to make sure the people who would comprise the well-regulated militia have access to weapons suitable for service in same - that is, "weapons of war".


Looks like you need to ask for different talking points.

I really wish that I could agree with, and I do. The entire point of the second amendment is to make sure people who would comprise a militia have access to suitable weapons. But that ship has long ago sailed away. Heller pretty much put a nail in the coffin of what was already past dead.

The purpose of the second amendment was protection against a standing army. It was not about self-defense, at the nation's founding most guns were required to be kept in the armory. It was too dangerous to keep them at home, raiding Indians would take them. I mean where were the British headed during the Battles of Lexington and Concord? Why did Paul Revere ride? It is really that simple.

Look, I know we got a lot of big time cowboys on this website. But let's just be honest. Can you imagine someone showing up at Sunday church service and asking for volunteers to join the militia and go off and fight the Russians, or the Chinese? Even better, just how many citizens in your location are going to show up every Saturday morning for drills? Three or four? The founders idea of a militia, able to take the place of a standing army, died long ago. Now, we have a "professional" army, and I can promise you, the founders, to the person, are rolling in their graves.

Think about this. Since we have eliminated the draft and went to a volunteer force, we have LOST, flippin LOST, every conflict we have engaged in. Hell, we lost Vietnam even with a draft, because it was so easily circumvented. Ask Donald Trump. Or Joe Biden, or damn near any member of Congress in the age group.

Look, I dream of the day when you can waltz into a Dick's Sporting Goods and purchase a MG-42. Walk right out the door with it. No permit, nothing. Just give them the cash and walk out the door. But in order for that to happen you need at least half the males from 18 to 55 showing up for Saturday morning drills. That ain't going to happen. Hell, the few that do show up will be taking selfies that they can post on Facebook. And when it comes time to show up and fight the enemy, well they will be back home, still posting on Facebook.

We don't deserve the legacy the founders have given us. And to be brutally honest, we are destined to let it slip away. In this thread I have mentioned my grandfather. Five foot nothing, but meaner than a rattlesnake. He would fight you at the drop of a hat. A cook for the CCC, and a stone cold fox that made the women swoon. But they don't make them like him anymore, now this nation is filled with self-consumed idiots that are no more likely to put their life on the line to defend this country than they are to delete their Facebook account. Nope, we "pay people" to defend us. And that is the real downfall of this nation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No?
Then your response is irrelevant.

Ah. You have no meaningful response.
I expected as much.

 

[Rambunctious]

Read harder.

I agree with what you said its just the title of the thread... I argue with people here all the time that say the AR is a weapon of war but its not as far as any military in the world believes... the range is shorter with an AR and that's why army's find them unsuitable for combat...

 

[Bell Huey]

Can you walk into Dicks and buy a sawed off shotgun?
How about a machine gun?
Hand grenades?
Missile launchers?

No?
Then your response is irrelevant.

You can get a shortbarreled weapon that fires a shotgun shell if the barrel is rifled,

If dicks sold machine guns and had a Class 3 FFL you could buy a machine gun if manufactured before Mar 1986.

Missile launchers and Grenades are classified as destructive devices, not firearms.

Did you know you could buy a tank?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree with what you said its just the title of the thread...

The point is:
Even if they are right, it doesn't matter.
Thus, I stipulate they are right, and excplain why it doesn't matter.

Takes way their talking points and forces them to come up with something new.

 

[progressive hunter]

No I think you have... the AR 15 is semi auto... nations don't consider them war ready in any way.... so your headline is wrong....

thats only because they have something better,,
doesnt change the fact the 2nd A is specific to military grade weapons,,

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Personally, I usually don't stand up, preferring prone supported firing position, so I can really reach out and zero in on distant range targets, for me 300 meters plus, without scope.
People that think it a weapon of war to take up against a government force (ours or anybody else's) are idiots, that have never seen me put on a "Mad Minute" Combine Arms firepower demonstration with tanks, infantry and mortars or Artillery support. It was awesome, to say the least, and that was without close air support of A-10s or helicopter gunships. Non-military or even non Combat Arms people truly cannot imagine, as movies don't do justice compared to being there.

I don't usually include you with the usual progs on here.
I know you aren't as dumb as so many of them when it comes to common sense even though I know you're a Dem still.

I always hear how standing against the govt is impossible because of all their technology & weapons.
I don't buy it at all.
It would not be a stand up fight & that limits the military firepower superiority greatly.
If the 3rd century Taliban that wipe their asses with a bare hand can do it, I think a nation of millions of hunters has a chance, particularly since the rank & file in the military isn't going to be happy about any orders to fire on the freedom loving citizens they identify with.
I just hope it never comes to that but the odds that it will go up everyday.
The modern DC UNiparty agenda is the exact opposite of what the founding fathers gave us & it isn't stopping on it's own.
Going after our kids, cars & freedoms will eventually result in a violent response.

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't usually include you with the usual progs on here.
I know you aren't as dumb as so many of them when it comes to common sense even though I know you're a Dem still.

I always hear how standing against the govt is impossible because of all their technology & weapons.
I don't buy it at all.
It would not be a stand up fight & that limits the military firepower superiority greatly.
If the 3rd century Taliban that wipe their asses with a bare hand can do it, I think a nation of millions of hunters has a chance, particularly since the rank & file in the military isn't going to be happy about any orders to fire on the freedom loving citizens they identify with.
I just hope it never comes to that but the odds that it will go up everyday.
The modern DC UNiparty agenda is the exact opposite of what the founding fathers gave us & it isn't stopping on it's own.
Going after our kids, cars & freedoms will eventually result in a violent response.

thats also considering that many of the military will refuse to fire on americans if not outright helping us,,

 

[White 6]

I don't usually include you with the usual progs on here.
I know you aren't as dumb as so many of them when it comes to common sense even though I know you're a Dem still.

I always hear how standing against the govt is impossible because of all their technology & weapons.
I don't buy it at all.
It would not be a stand up fight & that limits the military firepower superiority greatly.
If the 3rd century Taliban that wipe their asses with a bare hand can do it, I think a nation of millions of hunters has a chance, particularly since the rank & file in the military isn't going to be happy about any orders to fire on the freedom loving citizens they identify with.
I just hope it never comes to that but the odds that it will go up everyday.
The modern DC UNiparty agenda is the exact opposite of what the founding fathers gave us & it isn't stopping on it's own.
Going after our kids, cars & freedoms will eventually result in a violent response.

It won't come to it, but NO. It would have zero chance of success. It is just a fact of the armament, the training, and the desire to stay alive by uniformed forces with their own kids, wives and lives in the balance. Don't sweat it. It will not happen.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

It won't come to it, but NO. It would have zero chance of success. It is just a fact of the armament, the training, and the desire to stay alive by uniformed forces with their own kids, wives and lives in the balance. Don't sweat it. It will not happen.

So you think the Dems are gonna knock off all the crazy shit & become reasonable people again?
I hope you're right.
Otherwise, this only ends in violence.

 

[White 6]

So you think the Dems are gonna knock off all the crazy shit & become reasonable people again?
I hope you're right.
Otherwise, this only ends in violence.

Some will not, or at least, I would be highly surprised. Just like some of the far right wing will not become reasonable again, either. It won't worry me much unless they are unreasonable with me face to face, and that too, is unlikely.

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

Not just kill people, but kill a lot of people in a short period of time!!!
AND... the 5.56x45 round fired by the AR15 DOES do significantly more trauma than a handgun round -- it's a RIFLE round.

OK?
So what?

AR15s are in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm.
As such, they are "bearable arms"; as they are "bearable arms" they to not fall under the conjunctive "dangerous and unusual" exception.
As they are "bearable arms", the right of the people to own and use them for those purposes is protected from infringement by the 2nd Amendment.

Your whining and crying about "weapon of war", "designed to kill" and "more trauma than a hand gun" cannot be more irrelevant to the above.

And THEN:
The entire point of the 2nd is to make sure the people who would comprise the well-regulated militia have access to weapons suitable for service in same - that is, "weapons of war".


Looks like you need to ask for different talking points.

You left this out: AR15s are good for destroying the bodies of small children. The children in the Uvalde, Texas school shooting had to be identified by their DNA samples because there wasn't much of their bodies left.
Do we really need AR15s for civilian use?

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

Can President Biden issue an executive order forbidding any ammunition for AR15s to be made? I wish he could.

 

[progressive hunter]

You left this out: AR15s are good for destroying the bodies of small children. The children in the Uvalde, Texas school shooting had to be identified by their DNA samples because there wasn't much of their bodies left.
Do we really need AR15s for civilian use?

of course we do,, they are also good for killing commies and all sorts of vermin,,

as for uvalde,, well they are good for killing the shooter there if the cops werent such chicken shits,,

and I guess you didnt know the shooter didnt care about the laws forbidding him from killing children so he most likely wont care about a law saying he cant have an AR,,,