Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This thread is just over six years old; and it’s been well over ten years since Heller – yet after all this time we continue to hear the same unsubstantiated, ignorant, and wrongheaded perceptions of the Second Amendment.
From the linked article in the OP:
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
A reckless, irresponsible invocation of the Second Amendment, indeed.
All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc.
I am sure there are folks out there that didn't know that and now they do; thanks to you
-
Wrong.You need to find out why the 2nd A exists.
The second amendment was created to assure the settlers in the new world that they will always be able to defend themselves in case the British returned for another attempt at conquest.
That need has long since faded away
No, first of all, the 2nd amendment was not to give individuals the right to be armed because that was already a pre-existing individual right. Instead, the point of the 2nd amendment was a blanket prohibition of any federal jurisdiction over any weapons.
That is because no government can ever be trusted.
Just like the British government became corrupt, all government do eventually, and so will our government.
And ensuring individual arms is not just for rebellion, but also against any foreign or domestic invasion.
If we have a social disruption, like hurricanes, large meteorite strike, global depression, super volcanic eruption, etc., then there may be no government to defend us. Like the Korean grocers during the LA riots.
The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to ‘fight crime.’
And it was not intended to ‘overthrow’ a government subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical,’ the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment being completely devoid of merit.
Gun registration is required for eventual gun banning and confiscation....
Paranoia strikes deep when it is near which only means you have something to hide.
let me guess, you are a NRA member-?
Germany, banned guns, then murdered 12 million Europeans........Britain registered guns, then banned them. Australia registered guns, then banned them. France, dittos, Canada, New York, California.....you guys keep pretending that registration doesn't lead to eventual confiscation...and yet the real world shows you are wrong...
What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....
It's about time we had some gun control hearings. I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.
Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.
It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.
Nonsense. All criminals have undetectable weapons all the time. All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc. And you can not make plastic guns. The barrel has to be steel. Plastic shatters from the expansion impulse of the explosion. Nor does government have the authority to regulate anything you wish to make yourself.
And it is a total violation of the 14th amendment for government to deny to anyone, that which government employees have.
Untrue. There has been a breakthrough in the metal 3d printers. You can make a metal barrel now. It's only good for a few shot before it splits. And as the chemists (for you 2nd amendment people, that would be alchemists) it won't be long before there will be even stronger chemical compounds for stronger metals will be available for the 3d Metal Printers. And if they come up with a compound that is not metal and won't show up on a scanner then it will pass right through an airport scanner. Either do something about it today or die by it later on.
You did not read carefully.
I did not say you can not print a metal gun but that you can not print a plastic gun.
If you print a metal gun, it will show up on metal detectors, like all guns.
So there is no 3D printer issue.
What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
I have proof....Duh-ryl. Everyone can now see that you are absolutely a liar.Nobody lies like Duh-rly. You were the first to mention Illinois. Here it is in post #7343:I didn't bring up Illinois, cupcake.
Well now. Sure am glad I get to educate you once again. Illinois does have a State Militia.
Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois
You keep telling your story. If you tell it enough times..........
Your ignorance is about what is necessary for a false narrative by oppressive lunatics - not about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Go away now, the adults are trying to talk.Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.A. Not it doesn’tnatural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.
B. We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
I have proof....Duh-ryl. Everyone can now see that you are absolutely a liar.Nobody lies like Duh-rly. You were the first to mention Illinois. Here it is in post #7343:I didn't bring up Illinois, cupcake.
Well now. Sure am glad I get to educate you once again. Illinois does have a State Militia.
Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois
You keep telling your story. If you tell it enough times..........
Proof that you brought up Illinois. Damn, you can't even remember that you brought up Illinois first, then you can't remember that you denied bringing up Illinois first. Are you off your meds again sweetie?I have proof....Duh-ryl. Everyone can now see that you are absolutely a liar.Nobody lies like Duh-rly. You were the first to mention Illinois. Here it is in post #7343:I didn't bring up Illinois, cupcake.
Well now. Sure am glad I get to educate you once again. Illinois does have a State Militia.
Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois
You keep telling your story. If you tell it enough times..........
Proof about what? You hacked enough out of that conversation that you left out what you have proof about. Stay focused.
Snowflake, I can't "hack" anything out of a conversation. In fact, I even added your original quote so people can click directly on it and be taken to your post (that I have no ability to alter).You hacked enough out of that conversation
What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....
Heller V only protected sane handguns in your Home, nothing more as long as your stayed within the laws such as if it's required to be registered and licensed accordingly. DC tried to make a gun owner have to either disassemble the handgun or have a trigger lock installed inside the home plus had such a stringent registration and licensing that Heller could never have a reasonable chance of receiving either. And that was overturned. Nothing else was overturn. NO mention of the AR at all. No mention of any weapon or gun outside of the home. In the end, the only thing that was protected was our right to defend our homes using sane handguns and to have them in reasonable operating condition INSIDE THE HOME. We have been through this many times and each time, your BS keeps coming up and each time I point out that it's still BS. Before you bring up McDonald V, McDonald V was just a rehash of Heller V and was a total waste of time.
BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out. The common phrase used today that is acceptable is "AR-15 and it's various clones" has withstood more than a couple of Federal Courts and has been refused to be ruled on by SCOTUS.
What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....
Heller V only protected sane handguns in your Home, nothing more as long as your stayed within the laws such as if it's required to be registered and licensed accordingly. DC tried to make a gun owner have to either disassemble the handgun or have a trigger lock installed inside the home plus had such a stringent registration and licensing that Heller could never have a reasonable chance of receiving either. And that was overturned. Nothing else was overturn. NO mention of the AR at all. No mention of any weapon or gun outside of the home. In the end, the only thing that was protected was our right to defend our homes using sane handguns and to have them in reasonable operating condition INSIDE THE HOME. We have been through this many times and each time, your BS keeps coming up and each time I point out that it's still BS. Before you bring up McDonald V, McDonald V was just a rehash of Heller V and was a total waste of time.
BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out. The common phrase used today that is acceptable is "AR-15 and it's various clones" has withstood more than a couple of Federal Courts and has been refused to be ruled on by SCOTUS.
Wrong.What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....
Heller V only protected sane handguns in your Home, nothing more as long as your stayed within the laws such as if it's required to be registered and licensed accordingly. DC tried to make a gun owner have to either disassemble the handgun or have a trigger lock installed inside the home plus had such a stringent registration and licensing that Heller could never have a reasonable chance of receiving either. And that was overturned. Nothing else was overturn. NO mention of the AR at all. No mention of any weapon or gun outside of the home. In the end, the only thing that was protected was our right to defend our homes using sane handguns and to have them in reasonable operating condition INSIDE THE HOME. We have been through this many times and each time, your BS keeps coming up and each time I point out that it's still BS. Before you bring up McDonald V, McDonald V was just a rehash of Heller V and was a total waste of time.
BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out. The common phrase used today that is acceptable is "AR-15 and it's various clones" has withstood more than a couple of Federal Courts and has been refused to be ruled on by SCOTUS.
And you are wrong again....the lower courts are ignoring Heller......that doesn't make it legal....
BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out
Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Scalia in Friedman v. Highland Park......after Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun registration is required for eventual gun banning and confiscation....
Paranoia strikes deep when it is near which only means you have something to hide.
let me guess, you are a NRA member-?
Germany, banned guns, then murdered 12 million Europeans........Britain registered guns, then banned them. Australia registered guns, then banned them. France, dittos, Canada, New York, California.....you guys keep pretending that registration doesn't lead to eventual confiscation...and yet the real world shows you are wrong...
I already showed the benefits of the Background Checks but you keep slamming your palms over your ears and screaming very loudly, "LaLaLaLa" over and over and coming up with the drivel about how it always leads to Gun Registrations and how Background checks just don't work so I won't waste my time with you on that. But I see more and more states going to it and I see the Feds honestly looking into making it federal requirement. And it has nothing to do with Gun registration. More and more people are no longer buying into your fear campaign.
Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.
It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.
Nonsense. All criminals have undetectable weapons all the time. All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc. And you can not make plastic guns. The barrel has to be steel. Plastic shatters from the expansion impulse of the explosion. Nor does government have the authority to regulate anything you wish to make yourself.
And it is a total violation of the 14th amendment for government to deny to anyone, that which government employees have.
Untrue. There has been a breakthrough in the metal 3d printers. You can make a metal barrel now. It's only good for a few shot before it splits. And as the chemists (for you 2nd amendment people, that would be alchemists) it won't be long before there will be even stronger chemical compounds for stronger metals will be available for the 3d Metal Printers. And if they come up with a compound that is not metal and won't show up on a scanner then it will pass right through an airport scanner. Either do something about it today or die by it later on.
You did not read carefully.
I did not say you can not print a metal gun but that you can not print a plastic gun.
If you print a metal gun, it will show up on metal detectors, like all guns.
So there is no 3D printer issue.
There is now since the 3D Metal Printer exists. What you mean to say is that there is no 3D Plastic Printer Issues. Actually, one can build a gun barrel out of Carbon/Carbon fiber and it will not show up on the scanners and will be stronger than even the best stainless steel barrels. Same goes for the so called Plastics. As that gets better, it becomes more of a problem for portable weapons. The 3D Metal Printers that the Military is buying also becomes a problem if some nasty bad dude has enough to buy one or two or three of them.
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. It is up to State legislators to organize sufficient militia to ensure that is the case.
What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded. And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training. Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster. This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings. Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria. And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting. The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle. Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place. The AR, it's snaps straight in. Rarely there is a bad mag feed. Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics. It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
Actually, that number is closer to 7 to 8 million for the AR and it's clone when you count the real manufacturers numbers and the parts sold to make new ones. The Gun Crazies will make up all kinds of numbers that sound real good but are outlandish. And the AR-15 and clones are the #2 most manufactured gun, the #1 goes to the Model 60 which has about a 10 year head start and is still selling strong even today. Most of us started out on one of those little semi auto tube fed 22 rifles.
The Courts require that you have to be specific in your wording in your Gun Regulating. You have to spell out exactly what gun you are regulating and how. When you use a generic statement that describes a gun that fits a cross section that fits many different guns then that is unconstitutional. But when you specify one then that's constitutional. The accepting description today for the AR is "AR-15 and it's various Clones" legally covers exactly what it says it does. It doesn't encompass the Mini-14 or any of the others. It's specifically covers just the AR-15 and it's various clones. And that has been contested in court and the Courts have upheld that wording.
