The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Daryl Hunt]

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I do not believe that is accurate.
While some states did ratify the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was finished, so that then the Bill of Rights were amendments added to the back of the Constitution instead of being at the very front where they should be, the first 10 amendment are none the less an integral part of the Constitution. These 10 amendment were and will always be known as the Bill of Rights.

{...
Constitutional Convention
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers were also skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.

Constitution after its ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution’s supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states as New York and Virginia.

Madison Drafts Amendments
In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise. Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments–the Bill of Rights–had been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states were needed; Virginia’s ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting his claim on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” Marshall ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
...}
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/bill-of-rights

You make it sound like an after thought, and that is not true.
Many people and many states always wanted a Bill of Rights first, and many states would never have signed onto the Constitution if it had not contained a Bill of Rights. And even those that did sign on before the Bill of Rights were penned, only did so on the verbal guarantee there would be a Bill of Rights.

Again, when something is not right, it's "Unconstitutional" not "UnBillofrightable". The Bill of Rights has no legal standings and cannot be used in any conviction of any kind nor any reference for a defense.

That's not true. Defendants have used the Amendments as a defense against the prosecution violating their rights. The rights specifically outlin d in the Amendments. They have won many of those cases and had charges dropped specifically because the state was found to have violated those rights. If the rights had no legal standing then the defendant would have not been able to use them and the courts would not have used them to determine that the rights were violated.

Did they say that it was "Unconstitutional" or was it "Unbillofrightable" in the rulings? You keep squirming around that. Which is it?

 

[Rigby5]

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

Yes, now that we have McDonald vs Chicago firmly incorporating defense as an individual right, then convicted felons need to be re-examined. They do have the individual right of self defense.

That is a state decision.

Maybe, but it could also be a question the SCOTUS could over rule the states on. Not that that would be likely though.

The Supreme Court has avoided that question like the plague for good reason. it's not the Feds job. They leave it up to the lower courts and the lower governments where it belongs.

It is the SCOTUS's job to defend individual rights from infringement by states. The 14th amendment started that up.
But I agree they will try to avoid this.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I do not believe that is accurate.
While some states did ratify the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was finished, so that then the Bill of Rights were amendments added to the back of the Constitution instead of being at the very front where they should be, the first 10 amendment are none the less an integral part of the Constitution. These 10 amendment were and will always be known as the Bill of Rights.

{...
Constitutional Convention
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers were also skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.

Constitution after its ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution’s supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states as New York and Virginia.

Madison Drafts Amendments
In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise. Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments–the Bill of Rights–had been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states were needed; Virginia’s ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting his claim on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” Marshall ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
...}
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/bill-of-rights

You make it sound like an after thought, and that is not true.
Many people and many states always wanted a Bill of Rights first, and many states would never have signed onto the Constitution if it had not contained a Bill of Rights. And even those that did sign on before the Bill of Rights were penned, only did so on the verbal guarantee there would be a Bill of Rights.

Again, when something is not right, it's "Unconstitutional" not "UnBillofrightable". The Bill of Rights has no legal standings and cannot be used in any conviction of any kind nor any reference for a defense.

When someone refers to the "Bill of Rights", everyone knows they are referring to the first 10 amendments, which are well known as restrictions on the federal government. That is important because if you just call them amendments, then there is no inherent sense of restriction on federal government. Amendments after the first 10 can be enhancements of the federal jurisdiction, and not restrictions. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution.

It took you long enough. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution They had a couple of state reps that were having trouble ratifying in 1791 and wanted all 11 states included. They wrote it up that way to sway them. The Bill of Rights is exactly what you finally admitted. It's the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. And it was Ratified. But it has no legal standing. But it swayed the last 11th state representatives to finally ratify the constitution for their state. The US was already formed and legal without them with 10 states. The Bill of Rights is more a political document.

I just don't use it the place when referring to something that applies to the Constitution of the United States nor do the Courts.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

And, you want to push it even further?

This is the reason we should demand absolutely no infringements. Nukes and all. Felon or not.

Or, people could leave well-enough alone.

.

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

Age restrictions or waiting periods, both infringements. As is not being able to buy all kinds of military grade weapons and bombs...

You're making the case for it. Not me.

Do you want to leave well-enough alone, or do you want us to start being strict about things?

.

 

[Rigby5]

The fact remains, ARs and the like make for great hunting rifles...

Ya, hunting humans.

Nah.
For hunting humans you would much more likely want a pistol bullet.
That would allow you to carry and fire many more rounds.
The .223 of the AR is way too powerful close range, and too high of velocity for long range.
It is a fairly terrible weapon and caliber all in all.
But it is ok for things smaller than humans, like rabbits or coyotes, and that is about all.

All major Militaries in the world disagree with you. And so does almost every combat veteran that ever lived in the modern day of warfare. But what do they know, they are just the professionals.

That is not true.
I do not know anyone who likes the AR.
They had lots of trouble with it.
Especially in Vietnam.
Clogged, jammed, etc.
In Afghanistan they hate it because it does not have the range.
In Iraq they hated it because the barrel was too long compared to a real urban weapon like the MP5.

All really good gas operated firearms have a means of adjusting the gas aperture for things like temperature.
It does not have enough barrel twist to make the bullet stable enough to penetrate kevlar.

 

[progressive hunter]

The fact remains, ARs and the like make for great hunting rifles...

Ya, hunting humans.

That's it... OWN your ignorance. Well done.

Even the military uses them for hunting humans.

The military is just out for profiteering, and Colt make millions on the AR series.
Does not mean they are good rifles.
They really suck actually.
It is just that now they are cheap, due to surplus volumes.

Have you ever really look at why the AR looks like it does? It ain't pretty. In fact, there is nothing on it that is cosmetic at all. It's all functional. Every part has a function for one thing and one thing alone. It's a weapon of war. It's designed by Stoner in the 50s for one thing. To be used by an 19 year old kid, scared out of his mind, pumped full of adrenaline, under heavy fire and to be able to pump as many rounds as possible and reload as quickly as possible under those conditions. This is why almost every weapon they propose to replace it in the Military has exactly the same features and looks almost exactly the same. Those that don't never get considered as pretty doesn't have any place. I can have the original AR-15 Model 601 (Malaysia) from 1958 and the parts from the most recent Colt Model 750 (Civilian AR-15) almost all interchange save about 3 or 4 pieces. The only parts that won't interchange are the parts that makes the difference between the full auto and the semi auto. When you make something perfect, it doesn't need changing, just upgrading. Much like the C-130 and the B-52. In the ARs case, about the only upgrading is in the caliber. The 5.56 may get changed to the 6.8spc.

thank gosh the 2nd amendment was meant specifically for weapons of war

 

[rjs330]

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the Bill of Rights are not part of the Constitution? In other words slavery can still be legal? Or that we have no right to freedom of speech? Or that we have no constitutional right against unlawful search and siezure or right to an attorney or against self incrimination?

OR are you trying to say we shouldn't refer to the amendments as the bill of Rights and should just refer to them as "the Constitution"?

Cause the courts all over the place including SCOTUS has used the amendments as constitutional authority to determine whether or not something like a search and seizure is constitutional.

They don't refer to the Bill of Rights in rulings. They refer to the Constitution. There is no legal standing from the Bill of Rights since it's actually a copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. You can try and twist this all you want but I have NEVER heard of any court ruling that something was "UnBillofrightable".

You still not answering my question. Is the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution or not? When SCOTUS rules on something as unconstitutional such as search and seizure they use the Bill of Rights and say whether or not the search was unconstitutional or not. They could not do that if the Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution. When they refer to something that is constitutional or not they QUOTE the amendment. This establishing that it IS part of the Constitution.

So if you are saying the Bill of Rights IS part of the Constitution then I agree with you. If your saying it is not part of the Constitution then I disagree and so does the supreme Court.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The fact remains, ARs and the like make for great hunting rifles...

Ya, hunting humans.

Nah.
For hunting humans you would much more likely want a pistol bullet.
That would allow you to carry and fire many more rounds.
The .223 of the AR is way too powerful close range, and too high of velocity for long range.
It is a fairly terrible weapon and caliber all in all.
But it is ok for things smaller than humans, like rabbits or coyotes, and that is about all.

All major Militaries in the world disagree with you. And so does almost every combat veteran that ever lived in the modern day of warfare. But what do they know, they are just the professionals.

That is not true.
I do not know anyone who likes the AR.
They had lots of trouble with it.
Especially in Vietnam.
Clogged, jammed, etc.
In Afghanistan they hate it because it does not have the range.
In Iraq they hated it because the barrel was too long compared to a real urban weapon like the MP5.

All really good gas operated firearms have a means of adjusting the gas aperture for things like temperature.
It does not have enough barrel twist to make the bullet stable enough to penetrate kevlar.

In Vietnam (I was one country over) the Air Force used the AR-15 Model 601. That's another way of saying M-16. We didn't have jamming problems. We didn't use the same powder or reloads that the Army used. We bought our ammo already loaded from the factories. We also included the cleaning kit (the AR still has the cleaning kit orfice) with every AR. We taught how to clean the weapon and emphasize to keep it clean. And one country over, we were just as dirty and buy as the ARmy was in Vietnam. We were busy with our own private war that the Army and Marines weren't invite to due to political reasons.

I can tell that you are going by what you read in certain sections on the Net. Stop that. Experience life (or death) on your own. And only then can you have the steel to make any determination. Until you have shlept a M-14 and a M-16 around for 24 yours a day and 3 weeks time can you figure out why the M-16 is superior. And the first time you get into a firefight at various ranges you will figure out why the 556 ain't so bad afterall over the 9mm.

 

[Rigby5]

The fact remains, ARs and the like make for great hunting rifles...

Ya, hunting humans.

That's it... OWN your ignorance. Well done.

Even the military uses them for hunting humans.

The military is just out for profiteering, and Colt make millions on the AR series.
Does not mean they are good rifles.
They really suck actually.
It is just that now they are cheap, due to surplus volumes.

Have you ever really look at why the AR looks like it does? It ain't pretty. In fact, there is nothing on it that is cosmetic at all. It's all functional. Every part has a function for one thing and one thing alone. It's a weapon of war. It's designed by Stoner in the 50s for one thing. To be used by an 19 year old kid, scared out of his mind, pumped full of adrenaline, under heavy fire and to be able to pump as many rounds as possible and reload as quickly as possible under those conditions. This is why almost every weapon they propose to replace it in the Military has exactly the same features and looks almost exactly the same. Those that don't never get considered as pretty doesn't have any place. I can have the original AR-15 Model 601 (Malaysia) from 1958 and the parts from the most recent Colt Model 750 (Civilian AR-15) almost all interchange save about 3 or 4 pieces. The only parts that won't interchange are the parts that makes the difference between the full auto and the semi auto. When you make something perfect, it doesn't need changing, just upgrading. Much like the C-130 and the B-52. In the ARs case, about the only upgrading is in the caliber. The 5.56 may get changed to the 6.8spc.

No, look at what Stoner came up with later, like the AR-18. It is much easier to make, being all steel stampings, but it also disipates heat much better, is much cheaper, and lasts much longer.
ArmaLite AR-18 - Wikipedia
The gas tube on the AR-16 is too small diameter, it has not metering aperture, it has no live cocking handle, there are way too many lugs on the bolt, etc.
The FN2000 is about 10 times better.
But it is too expensive because of the lack of surplus markets, and US laws.

Even the Steyr AUG is vastly superior.

Everyone makes a better rifle then the AR-16, except maybe the British.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the Bill of Rights are not part of the Constitution? In other words slavery can still be legal? Or that we have no right to freedom of speech? Or that we have no constitutional right against unlawful search and siezure or right to an attorney or against self incrimination?

OR are you trying to say we shouldn't refer to the amendments as the bill of Rights and should just refer to them as "the Constitution"?

Cause the courts all over the place including SCOTUS has used the amendments as constitutional authority to determine whether or not something like a search and seizure is constitutional.

They don't refer to the Bill of Rights in rulings. They refer to the Constitution. There is no legal standing from the Bill of Rights since it's actually a copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. You can try and twist this all you want but I have NEVER heard of any court ruling that something was "UnBillofrightable".

You still not answering my question. Is the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution or not? When SCOTUS rules on something as unconstitutional such as search and seizure they use the Bill of Rights and say whether or not the search was unconstitutional or not. They could not do that if the Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution. When they refer to something that is constitutional or not they QUOTE the amendment. This establishing that it IS part of the Constitution.

So if you are saying the Bill of Rights IS part of the Constitution then I agree with you. If your saying it is not part of the Constitution then I disagree and so does the supreme Court.

You are still on this? The Bill of Rights has Zero Legal weight in a court of law. The Supreme Court rules on the Constitution not the Bill of Rights. The only reason the bill of rights was done was a political one in the first place to make 2 representatives feel good so they would ratify the constitution and join the nation. When the Supreme court states ruling that something is "UnBillofrightable" then I will be wrong. But until then, the Bill of Rights has zero legal weight.

 

[Rigby5]

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I do not believe that is accurate.
While some states did ratify the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was finished, so that then the Bill of Rights were amendments added to the back of the Constitution instead of being at the very front where they should be, the first 10 amendment are none the less an integral part of the Constitution. These 10 amendment were and will always be known as the Bill of Rights.

{...
Constitutional Convention
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers were also skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.

Constitution after its ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution’s supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states as New York and Virginia.

Madison Drafts Amendments
In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise. Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments–the Bill of Rights–had been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states were needed; Virginia’s ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting his claim on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” Marshall ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
...}
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/bill-of-rights

You make it sound like an after thought, and that is not true.
Many people and many states always wanted a Bill of Rights first, and many states would never have signed onto the Constitution if it had not contained a Bill of Rights. And even those that did sign on before the Bill of Rights were penned, only did so on the verbal guarantee there would be a Bill of Rights.

Again, when something is not right, it's "Unconstitutional" not "UnBillofrightable". The Bill of Rights has no legal standings and cannot be used in any conviction of any kind nor any reference for a defense.

When someone refers to the "Bill of Rights", everyone knows they are referring to the first 10 amendments, which are well known as restrictions on the federal government. That is important because if you just call them amendments, then there is no inherent sense of restriction on federal government. Amendments after the first 10 can be enhancements of the federal jurisdiction, and not restrictions. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution.

It took you long enough. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution They had a couple of state reps that were having trouble ratifying in 1791 and wanted all 11 states included. They wrote it up that way to sway them. The Bill of Rights is exactly what you finally admitted. It's the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. And it was Ratified. But it has no legal standing. But it swayed the last 11th state representatives to finally ratify the constitution for their state. The US was already formed and legal without them with 10 states. The Bill of Rights is more a political document.

I just don't use it the place when referring to something that applies to the Constitution of the United States nor do the Courts.

No, the Bill of Rights is just a subset of the Constitution, referring to restriction on federal jurisdiction.
That is a valid reference, and is what the SCOTUS often refers to.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Ya, hunting humans.

That's it... OWN your ignorance. Well done.

Even the military uses them for hunting humans.

The military is just out for profiteering, and Colt make millions on the AR series.
Does not mean they are good rifles.
They really suck actually.
It is just that now they are cheap, due to surplus volumes.

Have you ever really look at why the AR looks like it does? It ain't pretty. In fact, there is nothing on it that is cosmetic at all. It's all functional. Every part has a function for one thing and one thing alone. It's a weapon of war. It's designed by Stoner in the 50s for one thing. To be used by an 19 year old kid, scared out of his mind, pumped full of adrenaline, under heavy fire and to be able to pump as many rounds as possible and reload as quickly as possible under those conditions. This is why almost every weapon they propose to replace it in the Military has exactly the same features and looks almost exactly the same. Those that don't never get considered as pretty doesn't have any place. I can have the original AR-15 Model 601 (Malaysia) from 1958 and the parts from the most recent Colt Model 750 (Civilian AR-15) almost all interchange save about 3 or 4 pieces. The only parts that won't interchange are the parts that makes the difference between the full auto and the semi auto. When you make something perfect, it doesn't need changing, just upgrading. Much like the C-130 and the B-52. In the ARs case, about the only upgrading is in the caliber. The 5.56 may get changed to the 6.8spc.

No, look at what Stoner came up with later, like the AR-18. It is much easier to make, being all steel stampings, but it also disipates heat much better, is much cheaper, and lasts much longer.
ArmaLite AR-18 - Wikipedia
The gas tube on the AR-16 is too small diameter, it has not metering aperture, it has no live cocking handle, there are way too many lugs on the bolt, etc.
The FN2000 is about 10 times better.
But it is too expensive because of the lack of surplus markets, and US laws.

Even the Steyr AUG is vastly superior.

Everyone makes a better rifle then the AR-16, except maybe the British.

I see a lot of wasted effort in all of them. There is NO wasted effort in an AR.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You are still on this? The Bill of Rights has Zero Legal weight in a court of law. The Supreme Court rules on the Constitution not the Bill of Rights. The only reason the bill of rights was done was a political one in the first place to make 2 representatives feel good so they would ratify the constitution and join the nation. When the Supreme court states ruling that something is "UnBillofrightable" then I will be wrong. But until then, the Bill of Rights has zero legal weight.

Is it your argument that Amendments to the Constitution have no legal weight?

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I do not believe that is accurate.
While some states did ratify the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was finished, so that then the Bill of Rights were amendments added to the back of the Constitution instead of being at the very front where they should be, the first 10 amendment are none the less an integral part of the Constitution. These 10 amendment were and will always be known as the Bill of Rights.

{...
Constitutional Convention
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers were also skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.

Constitution after its ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution’s supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states as New York and Virginia.

Madison Drafts Amendments
In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise. Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments–the Bill of Rights–had been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states were needed; Virginia’s ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting his claim on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” Marshall ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
...}
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/bill-of-rights

You make it sound like an after thought, and that is not true.
Many people and many states always wanted a Bill of Rights first, and many states would never have signed onto the Constitution if it had not contained a Bill of Rights. And even those that did sign on before the Bill of Rights were penned, only did so on the verbal guarantee there would be a Bill of Rights.

Again, when something is not right, it's "Unconstitutional" not "UnBillofrightable". The Bill of Rights has no legal standings and cannot be used in any conviction of any kind nor any reference for a defense.

When someone refers to the "Bill of Rights", everyone knows they are referring to the first 10 amendments, which are well known as restrictions on the federal government. That is important because if you just call them amendments, then there is no inherent sense of restriction on federal government. Amendments after the first 10 can be enhancements of the federal jurisdiction, and not restrictions. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution.

It took you long enough. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution They had a couple of state reps that were having trouble ratifying in 1791 and wanted all 11 states included. They wrote it up that way to sway them. The Bill of Rights is exactly what you finally admitted. It's the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. And it was Ratified. But it has no legal standing. But it swayed the last 11th state representatives to finally ratify the constitution for their state. The US was already formed and legal without them with 10 states. The Bill of Rights is more a political document.

I just don't use it the place when referring to something that applies to the Constitution of the United States nor do the Courts.

No, the Bill of Rights is just a subset of the Constitution, referring to restriction on federal jurisdiction.
That is a valid reference, and is what the SCOTUS often refers to.

You are just playing with words now. Have it your way.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

So the fact that the government infringes on the constitution means that it's correct in doing so? That's a pretty convenient criterium. Literally justifies everything the government does. Foreign meddling, kids in cages, crack epidemic, rendition at places like GITMO. . . what's all the arguing about? The government already does this shit all the time. Just let it go, they're in charge.

 

[Rigby5]

The fact remains, ARs and the like make for great hunting rifles...

Ya, hunting humans.

Nah.
For hunting humans you would much more likely want a pistol bullet.
That would allow you to carry and fire many more rounds.
The .223 of the AR is way too powerful close range, and too high of velocity for long range.
It is a fairly terrible weapon and caliber all in all.
But it is ok for things smaller than humans, like rabbits or coyotes, and that is about all.

All major Militaries in the world disagree with you. And so does almost every combat veteran that ever lived in the modern day of warfare. But what do they know, they are just the professionals.

That is not true.
I do not know anyone who likes the AR.
They had lots of trouble with it.
Especially in Vietnam.
Clogged, jammed, etc.
In Afghanistan they hate it because it does not have the range.
In Iraq they hated it because the barrel was too long compared to a real urban weapon like the MP5.

All really good gas operated firearms have a means of adjusting the gas aperture for things like temperature.
It does not have enough barrel twist to make the bullet stable enough to penetrate kevlar.

In Vietnam (I was one country over) the Air Force used the AR-15 Model 601. That's another way of saying M-16. We didn't have jamming problems. We didn't use the same powder or reloads that the Army used. We bought our ammo already loaded from the factories. We also included the cleaning kit (the AR still has the cleaning kit orfice) with every AR. We taught how to clean the weapon and emphasize to keep it clean. And one country over, we were just as dirty and buy as the ARmy was in Vietnam. We were busy with our own private war that the Army and Marines weren't invite to due to political reasons.

I can tell that you are going by what you read in certain sections on the Net. Stop that. Experience life (or death) on your own. And only then can you have the steel to make any determination. Until you have shlept a M-14 and a M-16 around for 24 yours a day and 3 weeks time can you figure out why the M-16 is superior. And the first time you get into a firefight at various ranges you will figure out why the 556 ain't so bad afterall over the 9mm.

There is no question the AR jammed a lot. The gas tube is long and bent, with a right angle at the barrel port, so can not be cleaned. The 8 lugs on the bolt are too many, so causes jams when you are in swamps. I have heard there was talc contaminating the early powder batches, but it is still a weak design. It also does not work in Arctic temperatures.
And while you are right to complain about the weight of an M-14 in comparison, more modern rifles are lighter and better than both. We also should have an urban warfare machine pistol, and a longer range rifle. The M-16 is bad because they use it as one size fits all. It is a bad compromise. A lower velocity with more mass would be do both better.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Ya, hunting humans.

Nah.
For hunting humans you would much more likely want a pistol bullet.
That would allow you to carry and fire many more rounds.
The .223 of the AR is way too powerful close range, and too high of velocity for long range.
It is a fairly terrible weapon and caliber all in all.
But it is ok for things smaller than humans, like rabbits or coyotes, and that is about all.

All major Militaries in the world disagree with you. And so does almost every combat veteran that ever lived in the modern day of warfare. But what do they know, they are just the professionals.

That is not true.
I do not know anyone who likes the AR.
They had lots of trouble with it.
Especially in Vietnam.
Clogged, jammed, etc.
In Afghanistan they hate it because it does not have the range.
In Iraq they hated it because the barrel was too long compared to a real urban weapon like the MP5.

All really good gas operated firearms have a means of adjusting the gas aperture for things like temperature.
It does not have enough barrel twist to make the bullet stable enough to penetrate kevlar.

In Vietnam (I was one country over) the Air Force used the AR-15 Model 601. That's another way of saying M-16. We didn't have jamming problems. We didn't use the same powder or reloads that the Army used. We bought our ammo already loaded from the factories. We also included the cleaning kit (the AR still has the cleaning kit orfice) with every AR. We taught how to clean the weapon and emphasize to keep it clean. And one country over, we were just as dirty and buy as the ARmy was in Vietnam. We were busy with our own private war that the Army and Marines weren't invite to due to political reasons.

I can tell that you are going by what you read in certain sections on the Net. Stop that. Experience life (or death) on your own. And only then can you have the steel to make any determination. Until you have shlept a M-14 and a M-16 around for 24 yours a day and 3 weeks time can you figure out why the M-16 is superior. And the first time you get into a firefight at various ranges you will figure out why the 556 ain't so bad afterall over the 9mm.

There is no question the AR jammed a lot. The gas tube is long and bent, with a right angle at the barrel port, so can not be cleaned. The 8 lugs on the bolt are too many, so causes jams when you are in swamps. I have heard there was talc contaminating the early powder batches, but it is still a weak design. It also does not work in Arctic temperatures.
And while you are right to complain about the weight of an M-14 in comparison, more modern rifles are lighter and better than both. We also should have an urban warfare machine pistol, and a longer range rifle. The M-16 is bad because they use it as one size fits all. It is a bad compromise. A lower velocity with more mass would be do both better.

And is this from your own personal experience in combat?

 

[Rigby5]

I do not believe that is accurate.
While some states did ratify the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was finished, so that then the Bill of Rights were amendments added to the back of the Constitution instead of being at the very front where they should be, the first 10 amendment are none the less an integral part of the Constitution. These 10 amendment were and will always be known as the Bill of Rights.

{...
Constitutional Convention
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers were also skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.

Constitution after its ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution’s supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states as New York and Virginia.

Madison Drafts Amendments
In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise. Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments–the Bill of Rights–had been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states were needed; Virginia’s ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting his claim on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” Marshall ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
...}
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/bill-of-rights

You make it sound like an after thought, and that is not true.
Many people and many states always wanted a Bill of Rights first, and many states would never have signed onto the Constitution if it had not contained a Bill of Rights. And even those that did sign on before the Bill of Rights were penned, only did so on the verbal guarantee there would be a Bill of Rights.

Again, when something is not right, it's "Unconstitutional" not "UnBillofrightable". The Bill of Rights has no legal standings and cannot be used in any conviction of any kind nor any reference for a defense.

When someone refers to the "Bill of Rights", everyone knows they are referring to the first 10 amendments, which are well known as restrictions on the federal government. That is important because if you just call them amendments, then there is no inherent sense of restriction on federal government. Amendments after the first 10 can be enhancements of the federal jurisdiction, and not restrictions. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution.

It took you long enough. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution They had a couple of state reps that were having trouble ratifying in 1791 and wanted all 11 states included. They wrote it up that way to sway them. The Bill of Rights is exactly what you finally admitted. It's the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. And it was Ratified. But it has no legal standing. But it swayed the last 11th state representatives to finally ratify the constitution for their state. The US was already formed and legal without them with 10 states. The Bill of Rights is more a political document.

I just don't use it the place when referring to something that applies to the Constitution of the United States nor do the Courts.

No, the Bill of Rights is just a subset of the Constitution, referring to restriction on federal jurisdiction.
That is a valid reference, and is what the SCOTUS often refers to.

You are just playing with words now. Have it your way.

It is important words, because MOST of the Constitution tells what the federal government CAN do.
The Bill of Rights or the first 10 amendment are special because they say what the federal government CAN NOT do.
Very important subsection.

 

[Rigby5]

Nah.
For hunting humans you would much more likely want a pistol bullet.
That would allow you to carry and fire many more rounds.
The .223 of the AR is way too powerful close range, and too high of velocity for long range.
It is a fairly terrible weapon and caliber all in all.
But it is ok for things smaller than humans, like rabbits or coyotes, and that is about all.

All major Militaries in the world disagree with you. And so does almost every combat veteran that ever lived in the modern day of warfare. But what do they know, they are just the professionals.

That is not true.
I do not know anyone who likes the AR.
They had lots of trouble with it.
Especially in Vietnam.
Clogged, jammed, etc.
In Afghanistan they hate it because it does not have the range.
In Iraq they hated it because the barrel was too long compared to a real urban weapon like the MP5.

All really good gas operated firearms have a means of adjusting the gas aperture for things like temperature.
It does not have enough barrel twist to make the bullet stable enough to penetrate kevlar.

In Vietnam (I was one country over) the Air Force used the AR-15 Model 601. That's another way of saying M-16. We didn't have jamming problems. We didn't use the same powder or reloads that the Army used. We bought our ammo already loaded from the factories. We also included the cleaning kit (the AR still has the cleaning kit orfice) with every AR. We taught how to clean the weapon and emphasize to keep it clean. And one country over, we were just as dirty and buy as the ARmy was in Vietnam. We were busy with our own private war that the Army and Marines weren't invite to due to political reasons.

I can tell that you are going by what you read in certain sections on the Net. Stop that. Experience life (or death) on your own. And only then can you have the steel to make any determination. Until you have shlept a M-14 and a M-16 around for 24 yours a day and 3 weeks time can you figure out why the M-16 is superior. And the first time you get into a firefight at various ranges you will figure out why the 556 ain't so bad afterall over the 9mm.

There is no question the AR jammed a lot. The gas tube is long and bent, with a right angle at the barrel port, so can not be cleaned. The 8 lugs on the bolt are too many, so causes jams when you are in swamps. I have heard there was talc contaminating the early powder batches, but it is still a weak design. It also does not work in Arctic temperatures.
And while you are right to complain about the weight of an M-14 in comparison, more modern rifles are lighter and better than both. We also should have an urban warfare machine pistol, and a longer range rifle. The M-16 is bad because they use it as one size fits all. It is a bad compromise. A lower velocity with more mass would be do both better.

And is this from your own personal experience in combat?

I have never used an AR in combat, but I buy, sell, build, fix, etc., quite a few.
And they are the most troublesome rifle I have ever dealt with, except that they do not require head spacing.
That is the only thing I like about them.
The barrel and receiver is one piece.
So you can't and don't need to adjust the barrel to the receiver.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nah.
For hunting humans you would much more likely want a pistol bullet.
That would allow you to carry and fire many more rounds.
The .223 of the AR is way too powerful close range, and too high of velocity for long range.
It is a fairly terrible weapon and caliber all in all.
But it is ok for things smaller than humans, like rabbits or coyotes, and that is about all.

All major Militaries in the world disagree with you. And so does almost every combat veteran that ever lived in the modern day of warfare. But what do they know, they are just the professionals.

That is not true.
I do not know anyone who likes the AR.
They had lots of trouble with it.
Especially in Vietnam.
Clogged, jammed, etc.
In Afghanistan they hate it because it does not have the range.
In Iraq they hated it because the barrel was too long compared to a real urban weapon like the MP5.

All really good gas operated firearms have a means of adjusting the gas aperture for things like temperature.
It does not have enough barrel twist to make the bullet stable enough to penetrate kevlar.

In Vietnam (I was one country over) the Air Force used the AR-15 Model 601. That's another way of saying M-16. We didn't have jamming problems. We didn't use the same powder or reloads that the Army used. We bought our ammo already loaded from the factories. We also included the cleaning kit (the AR still has the cleaning kit orfice) with every AR. We taught how to clean the weapon and emphasize to keep it clean. And one country over, we were just as dirty and buy as the ARmy was in Vietnam. We were busy with our own private war that the Army and Marines weren't invite to due to political reasons.

I can tell that you are going by what you read in certain sections on the Net. Stop that. Experience life (or death) on your own. And only then can you have the steel to make any determination. Until you have shlept a M-14 and a M-16 around for 24 yours a day and 3 weeks time can you figure out why the M-16 is superior. And the first time you get into a firefight at various ranges you will figure out why the 556 ain't so bad afterall over the 9mm.

There is no question the AR jammed a lot. The gas tube is long and bent, with a right angle at the barrel port, so can not be cleaned. The 8 lugs on the bolt are too many, so causes jams when you are in swamps. I have heard there was talc contaminating the early powder batches, but it is still a weak design. It also does not work in Arctic temperatures.
And while you are right to complain about the weight of an M-14 in comparison, more modern rifles are lighter and better than both. We also should have an urban warfare machine pistol, and a longer range rifle. The M-16 is bad because they use it as one size fits all. It is a bad compromise. A lower velocity with more mass would be do both better.

And is this from your own personal experience in combat?

One does not need combat experience to recognize problems with a certain weapon, just like one does not need to be hit by a train to know that it's a good idea to take caution when crossing the tracks.

.