Why Liberals Want To Ban The AR-15

[bigrebnc1775]

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Sure...but let's say your wet dream came true and ALL AR15's were gone.

Mass shootings would still occur......with other types of guns.....so then, on the heels of succeeding on taking away AR15's that exact same strategy would then be used to remove the NEXT "most dangerous gun"....and the next....and the next....until finally all we had to defend our homes with was a phone and a prayer.

Why don't we instead focus our energy on THE REAL PROBLEM....mental health issues?

Taking away Constitutional Rights does not solve the REAL problem.

Nonsense.

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

The regulation of AR 15s has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.

The notion that anyone seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s Constitutional rights is a lie.

The courts have consistently upheld as Constitutional AWBs.

And the Supreme Court has never ruled as to the constitutionality of AWBs.

AWBs are unwarranted not because they ‘violate’ anyone’s rights, they’re unwarranted because they’re bad law and bad public policy.

Wrong...the courts have ignored the Supreme Court 2nd Amendment rulings over and over again.

Heller specifically states that all bearable arms are protected and Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in that ruling, stated in Friedman v Highland Park, that the AR-15 by name and all such weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment...

Alito, writing the opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts also dismissed any use of the dangerous and unusual argument against these rifles..........and affirmed their protection under Heller, and Miller...
You are wrong, and don't know what you are talking about...

Especially Miller has upheld that AR's and any military firearms are protected weapons.

Wrong – this is a lie.

Miller made no such holding, nor did Heller.

Again, nothing but lies from the right.

Liar
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

 

[DigitalDrifter]

As long as American liberals exist, there will be a demand for semi-automatic rifles.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Get back on topic, please, or move on

ah man! you are no fun!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Lol
The courts will never rule the ARs are any different than any other semi automatic rifle... Trump is loading up the courts with conservative judges

The courts in 1939 ruled that only military-style weapons are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

 

[Lesh]

Sure...but let's say your wet dream came true and ALL AR15's were gone.

Mass shootings would still occur......with other types of guns.....so then, on the heels of succeeding on taking away AR15's that exact same strategy would then be used to remove the NEXT "most dangerous gun"....and the next....and the next....until finally all we had to defend our homes with was a phone and a prayer.

Why don't we instead focus our energy on THE REAL PROBLEM....mental health issues?

Taking away Constitutional Rights does not solve the REAL problem.

Nonsense.

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

The regulation of AR 15s has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.

The notion that anyone seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s Constitutional rights is a lie.

The courts have consistently upheld as Constitutional AWBs.

And the Supreme Court has never ruled as to the constitutionality of AWBs.

AWBs are unwarranted not because they ‘violate’ anyone’s rights, they’re unwarranted because they’re bad law and bad public policy.

Wrong...the courts have ignored the Supreme Court 2nd Amendment rulings over and over again.

Heller specifically states that all bearable arms are protected and Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in that ruling, stated in Friedman v Highland Park, that the AR-15 by name and all such weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment...

Alito, writing the opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts also dismissed any use of the dangerous and unusual argument against these rifles..........and affirmed their protection under Heller, and Miller...
You are wrong, and don't know what you are talking about...

Especially Miller has upheld that AR's and any military firearms are protected weapons.

Wrong – this is a lie.

Miller made no such holding, nor did Heller.

Again, nothing but lies from the right.

Liar
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Miller held that regulating machine guns was Constitutional

This because of their lethality as a military weapon...like the AR.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nonsense.

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

The regulation of AR 15s has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.

The notion that anyone seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s Constitutional rights is a lie.

The courts have consistently upheld as Constitutional AWBs.

And the Supreme Court has never ruled as to the constitutionality of AWBs.

AWBs are unwarranted not because they ‘violate’ anyone’s rights, they’re unwarranted because they’re bad law and bad public policy.

Wrong...the courts have ignored the Supreme Court 2nd Amendment rulings over and over again.

Heller specifically states that all bearable arms are protected and Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in that ruling, stated in Friedman v Highland Park, that the AR-15 by name and all such weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment...

Alito, writing the opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts also dismissed any use of the dangerous and unusual argument against these rifles..........and affirmed their protection under Heller, and Miller...
You are wrong, and don't know what you are talking about...

Especially Miller has upheld that AR's and any military firearms are protected weapons.

Wrong – this is a lie.

Miller made no such holding, nor did Heller.

Again, nothing but lies from the right.

Liar
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Miller held that regulating machine guns was Constitutional

This because of their lethality as a military weapon...like the AR.

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?

 

[Lesh]

Wrong...the courts have ignored the Supreme Court 2nd Amendment rulings over and over again.

Heller specifically states that all bearable arms are protected and Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in that ruling, stated in Friedman v Highland Park, that the AR-15 by name and all such weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment...

Alito, writing the opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts also dismissed any use of the dangerous and unusual argument against these rifles..........and affirmed their protection under Heller, and Miller...
You are wrong, and don't know what you are talking about...

Especially Miller has upheld that AR's and any military firearms are protected weapons.

Wrong – this is a lie.

Miller made no such holding, nor did Heller.

Again, nothing but lies from the right.

Liar
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Miller held that regulating machine guns was Constitutional

This because of their lethality as a military weapon...like the AR.

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?

Wait...machine guns weren't in common use as a military weapon (a militia is a military organization)?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Especially Miller has upheld that AR's and any military firearms are protected weapons.

Wrong – this is a lie.

Miller made no such holding, nor did Heller.

Again, nothing but lies from the right.

Liar
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Miller held that regulating machine guns was Constitutional

This because of their lethality as a military weapon...like the AR.

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?

Wait...machine guns weren't in common use as a military weapon (a militia is a military organization)?

They were in common use in the military and yes you could order a machine gun in the mail
FYI AR's are in common use NOW.

 

[Lesh]

Miller upheld that the National Firearms Act was Constitutional.

The NFA regulated machines guns. That means any law that regulates a firearm is legal

 

[Lesh]

you could order a machine gun in the mail

They are regulated just as ARs should be

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Miller upheld that the National Firearms Act was Constitutional.

The NFA regulated machines guns. That means any law that regulates a firearm is legal

I posted the link to miller maybe you should revisit it
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you could order a machine gun in the mail

They are regulated just as ARs should be

One more time
Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations


Annotation

Primary Holding
Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.

 

[Cosmos]

For one thing, there are no more liberals. They are radical leftist America-hating communists.

The reason they want to ban the AR-15 and all other firearms is all about political power. They know it isn't going to happen for a long time but they'll continue to use it as a wedge issue and continue to demonize Republicans over it.

They have no desire whatsoever to diminish the gun crime problem. In fact, they want it to get worse so they can exploit it politically.

Going after the inanimate objects is cheap and easy. Going after criminals is expensive and difficult.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

The supreme court will be hearing the case involving New York even though New York killed the law they created the supreme court said it didn't matter they will hear it.

You got a viable link to that information?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

For one thing, there are no more liberals. They are radical leftist America-hating communists.

The reason they want to ban the AR-15 and all other firearms is all about political power. They know it isn't going to happen for a long time but they'll continue to use it as a wedge issue and continue to demonize Republicans over it.

They have no desire whatsoever to diminish the gun crime problem. In fact, they want it to get worse so they can exploit it politically.

Going after the inanimate objects is cheap and easy. Going after criminals is expensive and difficult.

You do know that your just dynamited any and all argument against not having any gun regulations don't you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

The supreme court will be hearing the case involving New York even though New York killed the law they created the supreme court said it didn't matter they will hear it.

You got a viable link to that information?

can you read?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

The supreme court will be hearing the case involving New York even though New York killed the law they created the supreme court said it didn't matter they will hear it.

You got a viable link to that information?

can you read?

Because you said so? Well, that case I can say whatever I want to about you and because I said it, it must be true. Now, get me that link without the Rumpster Circus Tent Dog and Pony act.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

The supreme court will be hearing the case involving New York even though New York killed the law they created the supreme court said it didn't matter they will hear it.

You got a viable link to that information?

can you read?

Because you said so? Well, that case I can say whatever I want to about you and because I said it, it must be true. Now, get me that link without the Rumpster Circus Tent Dog and Pony act.

If you can honestly read link has been posted.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

You don't need it for personal protection, a regular gun will do. It's a gun designed for war, mass killing. One could easily shoot up a shopping mall with one, not good. We have too many idiots in this country wanting to walk into shopping malls, movie theaters, dance clubs, and schools wanting to kill as many people as they can in a short amount of time. The AR-15 allows them to do that.

I know all the gun nuts are going cry your violating my rights, I say go cry me a river pumpkin we need tougher gun control in this country to lower the murders. It violates the constitution you say? I don't care so be it.

I recently left truck driving for a 48k year job in the Social Services industry that was offered to me. Pretty good since most my jobs besides truck driving have been low paying $7-10hr and I got fired from 7 jobs. Dyslexic, ADHD, Mildly Autistic, Mild problems with seizures.

But anyway... back to my point. Most the people I have known in the healthcare/ Social Services industry including caregivers, doctors, nurses are very much pro gun control. Several doctors I have known have said they see it everyday in the ER, they need stronger gun control laws in this country.

The AR-15 has never been used in war, and has never been used by the military....of any branch....

Do you know which guns are actual military weapons...

Pump action shotguns....in current use by all branches.

Bolt action, deer hunting rifle...in current use by the U.S. mililtary.

Lever action rifles...used by the U.S. military.

Revolvers...used by the U.S. military.

You don't even understand the issue....

Lever action rifles and revolvers used by the military? Never seen it in the past 30 years or so.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

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

~S~

Why? The Constitution does not address needs.