Why Liberals Want To Ban The AR-15

[Rustic]

The fundamental reason weakbrains buy them is because they look "scary"; i.e;, they look just like an M16.

For all practical purposes, they ARE a M-16.

Lol
Na, not really
You need to educate yourself on the matter

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No need to back step what Robert Frances said because it's already known and has been known that is the end game for you leftist confiscate all guns.

No democrat has ever said that they want the confiscation of all guns. NOT ONE!

This falls under the category of right-wing PARANOID DELUSIONS!

Hell. I don't own or want to own a gun, but if they ever tried outlawing ALL gun ownership I'd be fully on the side of the gun owners and would probably purchase one just to show support.

Believe it or not, I'm fully supportive of the right to own guns - just not ridiculously destructive weapons like the AR-15

If you support one gun ban you'll support the next one
When they say common-sense gun laws that is what they are saying because what they propose will have no effect on crime
When you support banning people under 21 the right they have protected by the second amendment you are supporting gun bans.
Don't lie

And where does it say in the 2nd that they can't place a limit to the age of ownership? Everything done within reason is the answer. You don't like it, move to Yemen where you can have any weapon your little black heart desires but you will also get plenty of chances to use them just before they kill you dead by dousing you with gasoline.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

But it can be regulated. Regulation is not infringement. And the more something is abused, the more it's going to be regulated.

Read this very slowly and answer the question at the end
The Supreme Court U.S. vs Miller 1939 ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

can the gun nuts here tell me why anyone would need one?

~S~

Poor little commie, it's called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. No one has to justify their personal choices to you or anyone else.

.

Not my Query , is it Tex...

Yes i've the right, my Q was WHY would i want one

~S~

No, your question was "why would anyone need one?", I can't tell you why you should want one. I bought mine to take care of a wild hog problem, it's easily capable of handling IR night and day sights.

.

This is definitely on the bucket list for me.

it's not just unfair but it's illegal as hell. So your bucket list is to break the law?

 

[Rustic]

In practical situations one can maximize the kill ratio with a handgun on concealment and a greater element of surprise alone.

Yep...

In 2018 there were a total of 5 attacks with rifles, either AK-47 civilian models or AR-15s, which are civilian rifles.........

Total killed.... 39 people.

numbers killed in the attacks...

4
11
4
3
17

Virginia Tech...2, 9mm pistols....32 killed.

Notice.....in only one of those attacks did the killer with the rifle kill more people than the guys with the pump action shotguns......

..the Russian shooter....Killed 20, injured 40 with a tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun.

The Navy Yard shooter killed 12 with a pump action shotgun..

The Santa Fe shooter used a pump action shotgun and .38 revolver and killed 10

Yep,
Progressives have absolutely zero credibility when it comes to firearms knowledge, political correctness has made them fucking retarded

Are you saying that I have zero knowledge? That the majority of the retired Military Personnel have zero knowledge because we disagree with you and you gunnutters?

Disagree all you want. You're not getting the guns.

Ever.

It's not up to me. If it were up to me, you would be left stranded on a desert island with your AR and just left to perish while you carressed your AR. But it's up to the area you live in. And if they decide (the voter) to get rid of the ARs then they will also get rid of you by whatever means necessary.

Lol
Typical words of a spineless control freak... You need to go out and get a life and mind your own fucking business.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The fundamental reason weakbrains buy them is because they look "scary"; i.e;, they look just like an M16.

For all practical purposes, they ARE a M-16.

Lol
Na, not really
You need to educate yourself on the matter

Sorry, I don't need to buy any of your guns. Your opinion means nothing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pretty much everyone in the Democratic party has in some way stated that forced buy backs is a very very bad idea. We may agree with the sentiment - but it would be a disaster.

Most of us cringed when he said it (not those in the auditorium). It's an unworkable idea.

That was the point I ruled out supporting Beto.

No need to back step what Robert Frances said because it's already known and has been known that is the end game for you leftist confiscate all guns.

No democrat has ever said that they want the confiscation of all guns. NOT ONE!

This falls under the category of right-wing PARANOID DELUSIONS!

Hell. I don't own or want to own a gun, but if they ever tried outlawing ALL gun ownership I'd be fully on the side of the gun owners and would probably purchase one just to show support.

Believe it or not, I'm fully supportive of the right to own guns - just not ridiculously destructive weapons like the AR-15

If you support one gun ban you'll support the next one
When they say common-sense gun laws that is what they are saying because what they propose will have no effect on crime
When you support banning people under 21 the right they have protected by the second amendment you are supporting gun bans.
Don't lie

And where does it say in the 2nd that they can't place a limit to the age of ownership? Everything done within reason is the answer. You don't like it, move to Yemen where you can have any weapon your little black heart desires but you will also get plenty of chances to use them just before they kill you dead by dousing you with gasoline.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

And the Supreme Court has determined that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited; it is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Moreover, laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms are perfectly Constitutional – including background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and the prohibition of the possession of certain classes of firearms other than handguns.

 

[Rustic]

The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.

"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"

That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?

No, it doesn’t.

But whatever its original intent doesn’t justify banning AR 15s.

That a law might be Constitutional doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good law or its enactment is warranted.

The Ar-15 was not designed for civilian use - there is no reasonable justification for civilians to have one.

In the words of Justice Scalia:

" “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”"

The AR-15 falls under the category of "any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has made no such ruling; the High Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, it has made no determination as to whether an AR 15 is ‘in common use,’ where its possession is entitled to Constitutional protections, or ‘dangerous and unusual,’ whose possession is outside of the scope of the Second Amendment.

Moreover, citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so; citizens have the right to possess firearms – including AR 15s – without having to justify or legitimize owning such a weapon where they are lawfully allowed to do so.

That’s the mistake conservatives make: they come up with ridiculous reasons in an attempt to ‘justify’ owning an AR 15 – when no such ‘justification’ is needed.

The supreme court has, however, ruled what guns are protected by the second amendment.

Guns, as in a generic term. The Courts have also ruled that a specific area can outright ban or heavily regulate an "AR-15 and it's various clones".

Yes, in urban areas... Where everybody’s fucking crazy. Lol

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No democrat has ever said that they want the confiscation of all guns. NOT ONE!

This falls under the category of right-wing PARANOID DELUSIONS!

Hell. I don't own or want to own a gun, but if they ever tried outlawing ALL gun ownership I'd be fully on the side of the gun owners and would probably purchase one just to show support.

Believe it or not, I'm fully supportive of the right to own guns - just not ridiculously destructive weapons like the AR-15

If you support one gun ban you'll support the next one
When they say common-sense gun laws that is what they are saying because what they propose will have no effect on crime
When you support banning people under 21 the right they have protected by the second amendment you are supporting gun bans.
Don't lie

And where does it say in the 2nd that they can't place a limit to the age of ownership? Everything done within reason is the answer. You don't like it, move to Yemen where you can have any weapon your little black heart desires but you will also get plenty of chances to use them just before they kill you dead by dousing you with gasoline.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

But it can be regulated. Regulation is not infringement. And the more something is abused, the more it's going to be regulated.

Read this very slowly and answer the question at the end
The Supreme Court U.S. vs Miller 1939 ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

Which has been partially overturned since Heller V and others. The Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away.

 

[OKTexas]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

can the gun nuts here tell me why anyone would need one?

~S~

Poor little commie, it's called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. No one has to justify their personal choices to you or anyone else.

.

Not my Query , is it Tex...

Yes i've the right, my Q was WHY would i want one

~S~

No, your question was "why would anyone need one?", I can't tell you why you should want one. I bought mine to take care of a wild hog problem, it's easily capable of handling IR night and day sights.

.

This is definitely on the bucket list for me.

I'll stick to tree stands or off my balcony.

.

 

[Rustic]

The fundamental reason weakbrains buy them is because they look "scary"; i.e;, they look just like an M16.

For all practical purposes, they ARE a M-16.

Lol
Na, not really
You need to educate yourself on the matter

Sorry, I don't need to buy any of your guns. Your opinion means nothing.

Lol
You should only be concerned with your own business, what other people buy is none of your business. You really do sound like a spineless old coot sitting in his fucking rocking chair yelling at whoever and whatever he can think of.

 

[BrokeLoser]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

can the gun nuts here tell me why anyone would need one?

~S~

Poor little commie, it's called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. No one has to justify their personal choices to you or anyone else.

.

Not my Query , is it Tex...

Yes i've the right, my Q was WHY would i want one

~S~

No, your question was "why would anyone need one?", I can't tell you why you should want one. I bought mine to take care of a wild hog problem, it's easily capable of handling IR night and day sights.

.

This is definitely on the bucket list for me.

it's not just unfair but it's illegal as hell. So your bucket list is to break the law?

Try harder bud.
In Texas, hunting hogs out of a helicopter is big business - Marketplace

 

[Rustic]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

can the gun nuts here tell me why anyone would need one?

~S~

Poor little commie, it's called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. No one has to justify their personal choices to you or anyone else.

.

Not my Query , is it Tex...

Yes i've the right, my Q was WHY would i want one

~S~

No, your question was "why would anyone need one?", I can't tell you why you should want one. I bought mine to take care of a wild hog problem, it's easily capable of handling IR night and day sights.

.

This is definitely on the bucket list for me.

it's not just unfair but it's illegal as hell. So your bucket list is to break the law?

Lol
Actually it’s not illegal at all, I do it two or three times a year down in southern Texas. Hog hunting from choppers is a hoot

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Liar

Spoiled brat!

I'm neither I am a well-armed law-abiding citizen not willing to allow my rights to be taken away.

Sounds like your a paranoid nut case.

So according to your earlier post, you should not be qualified to own a gun.

Of course your earlier post was inaccurate. Colombia vs. Heller is the law of the land.

Talk about a spoiled brat
Here you go one more time
The Supreme Court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

In your opinion – not as a fact of Constitutional law.

And yet again: the Supreme Court has not ruled as to the status of AR 15s: ‘in common use’ or ‘dangerous and unusual.’

The lower courts have consistently held the latter.

Until such time as the Supreme Court makes that determination, prohibitions of AR 15s are perfectly lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment.

Unless it's ruled in a lower court that they are not. And those lower court rulings have been shied away from by the SCOTUS like the black plague.

 

[Rustic]

No need to back step what Robert Frances said because it's already known and has been known that is the end game for you leftist confiscate all guns.

No democrat has ever said that they want the confiscation of all guns. NOT ONE!

This falls under the category of right-wing PARANOID DELUSIONS!

Hell. I don't own or want to own a gun, but if they ever tried outlawing ALL gun ownership I'd be fully on the side of the gun owners and would probably purchase one just to show support.

Believe it or not, I'm fully supportive of the right to own guns - just not ridiculously destructive weapons like the AR-15

If you support one gun ban you'll support the next one
When they say common-sense gun laws that is what they are saying because what they propose will have no effect on crime
When you support banning people under 21 the right they have protected by the second amendment you are supporting gun bans.
Don't lie

And where does it say in the 2nd that they can't place a limit to the age of ownership? Everything done within reason is the answer. You don't like it, move to Yemen where you can have any weapon your little black heart desires but you will also get plenty of chances to use them just before they kill you dead by dousing you with gasoline.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

And the Supreme Court has determined that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited; it is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Moreover, laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms are perfectly Constitutional – including background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, and the prohibition of the possession of certain classes of firearms other than handguns.

...and buy more guns and ammo....

 

[Rustic]

Spoiled brat!

I'm neither I am a well-armed law-abiding citizen not willing to allow my rights to be taken away.

Sounds like your a paranoid nut case.

So according to your earlier post, you should not be qualified to own a gun.

Of course your earlier post was inaccurate. Colombia vs. Heller is the law of the land.

Talk about a spoiled brat
Here you go one more time
The Supreme Court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

In your opinion – not as a fact of Constitutional law.

And yet again: the Supreme Court has not ruled as to the status of AR 15s: ‘in common use’ or ‘dangerous and unusual.’

The lower courts have consistently held the latter.

Until such time as the Supreme Court makes that determination, prohibitions of AR 15s are perfectly lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment.

Unless it's ruled in a lower court that they are not. And those lower court rulings have been shied away from by the SCOTUS like the black plague.

Lol
Trump has been loading up all courts With conservative judges... Live with it you sorry sack of shit....

 

[BULLDOG]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

can the gun nuts here tell me why anyone would need one?

~S~

Poor little commie, it's called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. No one has to justify their personal choices to you or anyone else.

.

Not my Query , is it Tex...

Yes i've the right, my Q was WHY would i want one

~S~

No, your question was "why would anyone need one?", I can't tell you why you should want one. I bought mine to take care of a wild hog problem, it's easily capable of handling IR night and day sights.

.

This is definitely on the bucket list for me.

it's not just unfair but it's illegal as hell. So your bucket list is to break the law?

In Texas, Feral hogs have caused many millions of dollars in damage and become such a problem till they are legal to hunt 12 months of the year, 24 hours a day. Helicopter hunting for them is limited to 30 minutes before sunrise till 30 minutes after sunset. They are still multiplying faster than they can be killed. That is the only legal helicopter hunting scenario I know of.

 

[satrebil]

In practical situations one can maximize the kill ratio with a handgun on concealment and a greater element of surprise alone.

Yep...

In 2018 there were a total of 5 attacks with rifles, either AK-47 civilian models or AR-15s, which are civilian rifles.........

Total killed.... 39 people.

numbers killed in the attacks...

4
11
4
3
17

Virginia Tech...2, 9mm pistols....32 killed.

Notice.....in only one of those attacks did the killer with the rifle kill more people than the guys with the pump action shotguns......

..the Russian shooter....Killed 20, injured 40 with a tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun.

The Navy Yard shooter killed 12 with a pump action shotgun..

The Santa Fe shooter used a pump action shotgun and .38 revolver and killed 10

Yep,
Progressives have absolutely zero credibility when it comes to firearms knowledge, political correctness has made them fucking retarded

Are you saying that I have zero knowledge? That the majority of the retired Military Personnel have zero knowledge because we disagree with you and you gunnutters?

Disagree all you want. You're not getting the guns.

Ever.

It's not up to me. If it were up to me, you would be left stranded on a desert island with your AR and just left to perish while you carressed your AR. But it's up to the area you live in. And if they decide (the voter) to get rid of the ARs then they will also get rid of you by whatever means necessary.

It's funny how you don't see that the scenarios you laid out are exactly why I own the guns in the first place.

You are free to pass whatever laws you want. You are free to use whatever means you want to obtain my firearms. But I promise you this - they will be hot and empty before you get your hands on them. Let's dance.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh, no, another "We Got Her" that's been said for the last 30 years. The only reason the Supreme Court ruled on the Heller V case was that DC doesn't have a State Federal Court since it's not a state and it had to go directly to the Supreme Court. You bunch of Gunnutters have been trying to get the Supreme Court to not only rule but in your favor for about 40 years and have failed. Go back to trying to lock Hillary up since it's only been about 30 years worth of attempts there.

Here's one of those cases it's got the state of New York so shaken they changed the law hoping the supreme court would not hear it. But it didn't work.
Fearing Supreme Court Loss, New York Tries to Make Gun Case Vanish

The adhered to the Law established by Heller V. Just like DC had to do. Fear hasn't a thing to do with it. It's called "Law Abiding". Another Dog and Pony act on your part.

If that were true why did Heller use Miller as a reference?

Already answered. Sit back, get a cup of coffee and think about it.

No you didn't answer the question heller reaffirmed Miller and Miller established the laws.

Already answered. I see you are entering into your Rump Circus Dog and Poly Act once again. What's next, you are going to move it down below the border so you can add a Fat Lady, Donkey and a disappearing Midgeet (use your own imagination on that one)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Dont give liberals any ideas

If they ban the AR-15 they will come after all the other guns in due time

Hate to break it to you but if they get the chance to ban AR's no firearm will be safe from the next ban.

In some areas, the AR is already banned. Or it's highly regulated. Where is your doomsday prediction? The Courts have already nixed what you are claiming that the future holds.

Yes in some areas it is it's shouldn't be but I can't help that because I am not a sheep that lives in those areas.

And the last Judge to make the ruling in favor of banning the AR for a specific area (Boston) agrees with you. She said that if you didn't like the law there, move to an area better to your liking.

The supreme court will be hearing a couple of cases that will be killing these gun bans. within the next couple of years.

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

But until that happens it remains a fact of Constitutional law that the current regulation of AR 15s in no manner violates the Second Amendment or infringes on the right of the people to possess firearms.

One would think that a ‘conservative’ Supreme Court should rule consistent with “states’ rights” dogma, and allow the bans enacted by the states to stand.

Such is the hypocrisy of the right.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Poor little commie, it's called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. No one has to justify their personal choices to you or anyone else.

.

Not my Query , is it Tex...

Yes i've the right, my Q was WHY would i want one

~S~

No, your question was "why would anyone need one?", I can't tell you why you should want one. I bought mine to take care of a wild hog problem, it's easily capable of handling IR night and day sights.

.

This is definitely on the bucket list for me.

it's not just unfair but it's illegal as hell. So your bucket list is to break the law?

In Texas, Feral hogs have caused many millions of dollars in damage and become such a problem till they are legal to hunt 12 months of the year, 24 hours a day. Helicopter hunting for them is limited to 30 minutes before sunrise till 30 minutes after sunset. They are still multiplying faster than they can be killed. That is the only legal helicopter hunting scenario I know of.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.