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.
You don’t get to “agree” or “disagree”, snowflake. What was stated is 100% fact. Nobody gives a shit about your opinion on it.I would have agreed if you had left your tag off. Too bad. Your Political agenda gets in the way of your message.
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.
Yes, you likely are more accurate.
I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.
However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
ARs are not more dangerous than anything. And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals. And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.
Boston, Chicago and a few other places have either heavily regulated them or outright banned the AR-15 and the various clones and it's been contested and has been upheld in Federal Courts. Heller V did nothing to address that issue. It only dealt with normal Handguns. Heller didn't deal with large capacity mags in handguns either. Let's cut to the chase and discuss what Heller V really dealt with.
1. Any State or lower government cannot ban normal handguns from the home
2. No State nor lower Government can force you to have to render your handgun inoperative either by disassembly or a trigger guard inside the confines of your home
3, If a State or lower government does require registration or licensing of a Handgun for the home, it must afford a reasonable method to it's citizens. (Heller was denied this)
That is Heller V DC in a nutshell. This was what Heller sued for and this is what Heller ended up getting. He didn't get everything he wanted but he did get those three things and it did send a message to the States and Lower Governments regarding Handguns and nothing else.
Exactly...you brought up Illinois. Not me. Then you lied about it (as you always do).Oh you mean the part where I resmpoend to someone else that said that the State of Illinois
At least you’re consistent at being ignorant and wrong.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.
Yes, you likely are more accurate.
I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.
However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
ARs are not more dangerous than anything. And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals. And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.
Boston, Chicago and a few other places have either heavily regulated them or outright banned the AR-15 and the various clones and it's been contested and has been upheld in Federal Courts. Heller V did nothing to address that issue. It only dealt with normal Handguns. Heller didn't deal with large capacity mags in handguns either. Let's cut to the chase and discuss what Heller V really dealt with.
1. Any State or lower government cannot ban normal handguns from the home
2. No State nor lower Government can force you to have to render your handgun inoperative either by disassembly or a trigger guard inside the confines of your home
3, If a State or lower government does require registration or licensing of a Handgun for the home, it must afford a reasonable method to it's citizens. (Heller was denied this)
That is Heller V DC in a nutshell. This was what Heller sued for and this is what Heller ended up getting. He didn't get everything he wanted but he did get those three things and it did send a message to the States and Lower Governments regarding Handguns and nothing else.
I am more tolerant of state of municipal gun regulations than I am federal.
But while Heller was very focused on hand guns, I think that was because the individual was legally required to have handguns for his job.
For normal home protection, handguns are not as common as shotguns or rifles, which was more easily aimed accurately.
The main advantage of handguns if concealment or easy open carry, neither of which are relevant to home protection.
So the principle of Heller should also apply to any reasonable home defense weapon.
Under the equal protection under the law of the 14th amendment, then if a city bans ARs, they have to ban all government employees from having ARs as well. Governments are not a source of authority. Only individual inherent rights are the only source of authority in a democratic republic. So then if individuals can't have it, they can't authorize government to have it either.
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.
Yes, you likely are more accurate.
I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.
However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
ARs are not more dangerous than anything. And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals. And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.
Boston, Chicago and a few other places have either heavily regulated them or outright banned the AR-15 and the various clones and it's been contested and has been upheld in Federal Courts. Heller V did nothing to address that issue. It only dealt with normal Handguns. Heller didn't deal with large capacity mags in handguns either. Let's cut to the chase and discuss what Heller V really dealt with.
1. Any State or lower government cannot ban normal handguns from the home
2. No State nor lower Government can force you to have to render your handgun inoperative either by disassembly or a trigger guard inside the confines of your home
3, If a State or lower government does require registration or licensing of a Handgun for the home, it must afford a reasonable method to it's citizens. (Heller was denied this)
That is Heller V DC in a nutshell. This was what Heller sued for and this is what Heller ended up getting. He didn't get everything he wanted but he did get those three things and it did send a message to the States and Lower Governments regarding Handguns and nothing else.
I am more tolerant of state of municipal gun regulations than I am federal.
But while Heller was very focused on hand guns, I think that was because the individual was legally required to have handguns for his job.
For normal home protection, handguns are not as common as shotguns or rifles, which was more easily aimed accurately.
The main advantage of handguns if concealment or easy open carry, neither of which are relevant to home protection.
So the principle of Heller should also apply to any reasonable home defense weapon.
Under the equal protection under the law of the 14th amendment, then if a city bans ARs, they have to ban all government employees from having ARs as well. Governments are not a source of authority. Only individual inherent rights are the only source of authority in a democratic republic. So then if individuals can't have it, they can't authorize government to have it either.
The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.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.
Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control.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.
If you read any state constitution, they have organized sufficient state militia.
They say ever able bodied adult male is part of the state militia.
judicial activism. the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
{...
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}
That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.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.
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.
If you read any state constitution, they have organized sufficient state militia.
They say ever able bodied adult male is part of the state militia.
judicial activism. the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
{...
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}
That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
But being a member of the militia is not “expressly declared necessary” for the right to keep and bear arms. Game over.The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
Only the anti-American, anti-constitutional wing nuts complain about getting guns controlled. Will they ever learn?Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control. will they ever learn.
Constitutional ignorance. The people are the people. The members of a militia are the militia. And federal law established that the “unorganized” militia is part of the militia and thus entitled to full 2nd Amendment rights. You lose (as always).judicial activism. the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.
Sorry, but nobody does astounding ignorance like Duh-ryl. Here is 10 U.S. Code § 246:Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.
Duh-ryl is a prime example of why nobody takes the left seriously about anything.(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
lol. i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.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.
Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.
that is the problem. in a more perfect militia world; everyone knows their heavy weapons section.judicial activism. the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
{...
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}
That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
The term of "Unorganized Militia" is a made up term by a bunch of people running around the woods hosting pickle suites while brandishing guns to make themselves seem more important than they really are. No Governor in their right mind would EVER call those fruitcakes up to defend a 7-11 much less a State against anything.
It is about who may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.But being a member of the militia is not “expressly declared necessary” for the right to keep and bear arms. Game over.The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
well regulated militia are declared necessary and have no need to complain about gun control laws, unlike the unorganized slackers.Constitutional ignorance. The people are the people. The members of a militia are the militia. And federal law established that the “unorganized” militia is part of the militia and thus entitled to full 2nd Amendment rights. You lose (as always).judicial activism. the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.
lol. i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.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’t
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.
Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.
