Why Liberals Want To Ban The AR-15

[Uncensored2008]

Except for this little ranch rifle.

The Mini14's barrel heats up lots faster than the AR15, and it isn't nearly as dependable under extended use. That's mostly due to the metal used in the barrel. Later models are some better, but still don't compare with te AR. AR sights don't suck like on the mini.

What?

You just make shit up with no regard for facts or reality.

No, the barrel doesn't "heat up faster."

The AR is lighter due to a composite stock and has a pistol grip. Those are really the only functional differences.

You leave out the fact that it reloads blindingly fast in comparison to the Mini-14 when under duress by a non combat trained person. The very reason it's the primary gun used by MOST Militaries around the world today.

Again, you Communists just make shit up.

Both rifles use a magazine that is based on a compression spring. There is zero difference in how either rifle reloads.

You're not just liars, you're stupid.

One goes straight in and uses gravity to extract the mag while the other requires the mag to be rocked forward by hand to release the mag. That makes reloading speed quite a difference. And the difference is what keeps the Mini-14 off the same regulation and ban lists that the AR-15 constantly finds itself.

Utter nonsense.

I have two mini-14's. As long as the action is open, it snaps in with no resistance.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Mini14's barrel heats up lots faster than the AR15, and it isn't nearly as dependable under extended use. That's mostly due to the metal used in the barrel. Later models are some better, but still don't compare with te AR. AR sights don't suck like on the mini.

What?

You just make shit up with no regard for facts or reality.

No, the barrel doesn't "heat up faster."

The AR is lighter due to a composite stock and has a pistol grip. Those are really the only functional differences.

You leave out the fact that it reloads blindingly fast in comparison to the Mini-14 when under duress by a non combat trained person. The very reason it's the primary gun used by MOST Militaries around the world today.

Again, you Communists just make shit up.

Both rifles use a magazine that is based on a compression spring. There is zero difference in how either rifle reloads.

You're not just liars, you're stupid.

One goes straight in and uses gravity to extract the mag while the other requires the mag to be rocked forward by hand to release the mag. That makes reloading speed quite a difference. And the difference is what keeps the Mini-14 off the same regulation and ban lists that the AR-15 constantly finds itself.

Utter nonsense.

I have two mini-14's. As long as the action is open, it snaps in with no resistance.

It takes one of your hands to release the mag. The M-16 just falls out. Anyone that has used both knows the difference. And anyone that ever served knows the difference. You are just a smart mouth troll.

 

[Rustic]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

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

~S~

With the exposure of DNC hack Eric Ciaramella as the fraudulent "whistleblower" the latest attempt at the coup to undo the 2016 election has failed. Pelosi will shut it down. The desperation of democrats to undo the election and protect the embezzlement of foreign aid payments by the well connected is at a fevered pitch.Every trick the democrats have tried has failed.

One last ditch effort by the democrats, assassinate president Trump. WE ALL know you're going to try it. IF you succeed, we ALL need AR-15's to put you traitor fucks down.

Rump is finished. He's either finished today, sometime this year of he might be reelected and still be finished further down the road. In his wake, the Republican Party is finished many times over. I suggest you spend less time defending Rump and more time rebuilding the GOP. If you can't get started soon, your worst fears just might become a reality. I would prefer a strong GOP with Strong Values instead of what we have today.

So shithead, how is that coup you traitors are conducting coming along?

Actually, you rumpsters already did your coup. You overthrew the GOP. And now you want to overthrow the United States of America. The only things standing in your way are the Constitution of the United States and Americans. Sorry, but you can't have Italy in 1933.

 

[Rustic]

I was in the AF for over 20. The AR-15 model 601 was in "General Military Use" since about 1963. And it was still the primary combat rifle in the USAF until 1992 when it finally retired. I believe that a number over 14,000 makes it in general military use.

Well now, you're what we call a "fucking liar."

The 601 was deployed as the "M-16" not the AR-15.

You know this, but decided to lie. I figure you're lying about military service as well - I mean, you're a shameless liar - no one can believe anything you say - and no one does.

The M-16 designation was not used until the US Army adopted it. From 1963 to 1969, the USAF one was an AR-15 Model 601 and in 1969 had to have an addition to it's stamping for the (M-16). To the day it was retired, the stamping was AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) even after the Army started buying the M-16 which is actually an AR-16 Model 602, 602 and 604 before it's stamped and shipped to the US Military.

The outside difference is the shape of the charging handle. The M-16 uses a t handle while the AR-15 Model 501 uses a diamond. I just love you kids. You can't even learn history when it slaps you in the face.

Lol
You need to educate yourself on firearms… Because you find yourself talking shit

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I was in the AF for over 20. The AR-15 model 601 was in "General Military Use" since about 1963. And it was still the primary combat rifle in the USAF until 1992 when it finally retired. I believe that a number over 14,000 makes it in general military use.

Well now, you're what we call a "fucking liar."

The 601 was deployed as the "M-16" not the AR-15.

You know this, but decided to lie. I figure you're lying about military service as well - I mean, you're a shameless liar - no one can believe anything you say - and no one does.

The M-16 designation was not used until the US Army adopted it. From 1963 to 1969, the USAF one was an AR-15 Model 601 and in 1969 had to have an addition to it's stamping for the (M-16). To the day it was retired, the stamping was AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) even after the Army started buying the M-16 which is actually an AR-16 Model 602, 602 and 604 before it's stamped and shipped to the US Military.

The outside difference is the shape of the charging handle. The M-16 uses a t handle while the AR-15 Model 501 uses a diamond. I just love you kids. You can't even learn history when it slaps you in the face.

Lol
You need to educate yourself on firearms… Because you find yourself talking shit

I've held, field stripped, cleaned and shot an AR-15 Model 601 while I was in USAF. It lasted longer in USAF than I did. You are here to sell guns. Nothing else. And I don't care to buy anthing you have to sell. Why would I buy junk like you peddle.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense – another lie.

The Supreme Court has not granted cert to any case involving the constitutionality of AWBs.

You're as ignorant as you are dishonest.

 

[LuckyDuck]

***\\\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.

The left wants to ban not only AR-15's, AK-47's and similar types, not because they look scary, the left looks at countries which banned firearms for the public in general (Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, China, et cetera) and sees that once the public is disarmed, they are no longer a threat to the government, once the oppressive laws are implemented. What we are seeing is the rise of a potential oppressive/tyrannical government and the only solution may be civil war.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

***\\\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.

The left wants to ban not only AR-15's, AK-47's and similar types, not because they look scary, the left looks at countries which banned firearms for the public in general (Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, China, et cetera) and sees that once the public is disarmed, they are no longer a threat to the government, once the oppressive laws are implemented. What we are seeing is the rise of a potential oppressive/tyrannical government and the only solution may be civil war.

What WE are seeing is the gunnutters are still trying to play the old Fear Game. Hate to break it to you but people are more afraid of losing their children to nutcases with "Legal" ARs than they are about whether you can have all the dangerous toys you want to play with.

Your whole thing is nothing but a Circus Act with a dog and pony. Get new materiel.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

He is lying...all of those things clayton claimed have been addressed in Heller and Caetano.....and Scalia specifically named the AR-15 as protected, and rifles like it, in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park...

Caetano.....dangerous and unusual attack by guys like clayton...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "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" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.


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.


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.

Miller specifically addresses what weapons are protected which clay ignores.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

He is lying...all of those things clayton claimed have been addressed in Heller and Caetano.....and Scalia specifically named the AR-15 as protected, and rifles like it, in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park...

Caetano.....dangerous and unusual attack by guys like clayton...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "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" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.


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.


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.

Miller specifically addresses what weapons are protected which clay ignores.

Yes, like Heller, both addressed handguns only and only in the homes for home defense.

 

[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.

Nonsense – another lie.

The Supreme Court has not granted cert to any case involving the constitutionality of AWBs.

You're as ignorant as you are dishonest.

LOL you can argue all you want but you are wrong
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?
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

He is lying...all of those things clayton claimed have been addressed in Heller and Caetano.....and Scalia specifically named the AR-15 as protected, and rifles like it, in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park...

Caetano.....dangerous and unusual attack by guys like clayton...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "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" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.


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.


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.

Miller specifically addresses what weapons are protected which clay ignores.

Yes, like Heller, both addressed handguns only and only in the homes for home defense.

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?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

A decent link has not been posted. Sorry, we don't accept a link to some rightwing nutjob site that is just trying to keep you wound up. Considering there is NO court case pending there is nothing for the Supreme Court to rule on. And even if there was, the Supreme Court has been avoiding 2nd amendment cases like the plague. So if you have further information present it. Otherwise, you are just playing the old Rump Carnie Dog and Pony show once again.

Post 411 you stupid son of a bitch was the last time I posted the court case link.

And this has to do with your saying that

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.

how? You posted a link to the ruling in 1939. It has nothing to do with what the Supreme Court has on it's docket today. In fact, Heller V and McDonald V have both thrown out some of Miller V's ruling about the military weapon ruling. Now, you need to be spanked like the foul mouthed little boy you really are. Here, let me help you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

A decent link has not been posted. Sorry, we don't accept a link to some rightwing nutjob site that is just trying to keep you wound up. Considering there is NO court case pending there is nothing for the Supreme Court to rule on. And even if there was, the Supreme Court has been avoiding 2nd amendment cases like the plague. So if you have further information present it. Otherwise, you are just playing the old Rump Carnie Dog and Pony show once again.

Post 411 you stupid son of a bitch was the last time I posted the court case link.

And this has to do with your saying that

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.

how? You posted a link to the ruling in 1939. It has nothing to do with what the Supreme Court has on it's docket today. In fact, Heller V and Miller V have both thrown out some of McDonald V's ruling about the military weapon ruling. Now, you need to be spanked like the foul mouthed little boy you really are. Here, let me help you.

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?

 

[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.

Nonsense – another lie.

The Supreme Court has not granted cert to any case involving the constitutionality of AWBs.

You're as ignorant as you are dishonest.

LOL you can argue all you want but you are wrong
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?
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

And it's been superceded by Heller V and McDonald V which removes the military requirement.

 

[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.

Nonsense – another lie.

The Supreme Court has not granted cert to any case involving the constitutionality of AWBs.

You're as ignorant as you are dishonest.

LOL you can argue all you want but you are wrong
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?
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

And it's been superceded by Heller V and McDonald V which removes the military requirement.

No it hasn't Heller and McDonald both referenced Miller Miller has been the base of all court rulings

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Nonsense – another lie.

The Supreme Court has not granted cert to any case involving the constitutionality of AWBs.

You're as ignorant as you are dishonest.

LOL you can argue all you want but you are wrong
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?
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

And it's been superceded by Heller V and McDonald V which removes the military requirement.

No it hasn't Heller and McDonald both referenced Miller Miller has been the base of all court rulings

You obviously have a reading comprehensive problem. Yes, they both referenced Miller and both discounted (overturned) the part about the military implications. And both were dealing with handguns in the homes. And both upheld the local registration laws as long as they were "Reasonable". McDonald referenced Heller on that part. The fact that a weapon is used in the Military no longer has any bearing on what is legal and what is not anymore. Your argument is about 10 years out of date. In fact, by application, it's been out of date far longer than that.

The Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Nonsense – another lie.

The Supreme Court has not granted cert to any case involving the constitutionality of AWBs.

You're as ignorant as you are dishonest.

They will, now that it isn't 4-4 on the court, with the one idiot as the swing vote......cause they already covered these rifles with Heller, Miller, Caetano, and Scalia named AR-15s as protected, by name, and all other rifles like it, in Friedman v Highland Park....the 2nd, 4th and 9th are simply ignoring those rulings and making up their own laws....

 

[2aguy]

***\\\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.

The left wants to ban not only AR-15's, AK-47's and similar types, not because they look scary, the left looks at countries which banned firearms for the public in general (Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, China, et cetera) and sees that once the public is disarmed, they are no longer a threat to the government, once the oppressive laws are implemented. What we are seeing is the rise of a potential oppressive/tyrannical government and the only solution may be civil war.

What WE are seeing is the gunnutters are still trying to play the old Fear Game. Hate to break it to you but people are more afraid of losing their children to nutcases with "Legal" ARs than they are about whether you can have all the dangerous toys you want to play with.

Your whole thing is nothing but a Circus Act with a dog and pony. Get new materiel.

Moron....total killed with ARs and AKs in 2018 mass public shootings?

There are over 18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands in the United States...

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 with rifles in mass public shootings.... 39 people. That is total.....cars kill over 38,000 people, and over 5,000 kids each year....you dope....

numbers killed in the attacks...

4
11
4
3
17

Virginia Tech...2, 9mm pistols....32 killed.
Luby's Cafe... 2 pistols, 24 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

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Nonsense – another lie.

The Supreme Court has not granted cert to any case involving the constitutionality of AWBs.

You're as ignorant as you are dishonest.

LOL you can argue all you want but you are wrong
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?
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

And it's been superceded by Heller V and McDonald V which removes the military requirement.

No it hasn't Heller and McDonald both referenced Miller Miller has been the base of all court rulings

You obviously have a reading comprehensive problem. Yes, they both referenced Miller and both discounted (overturned) the part about the military implications. And both were dealing with handguns in the homes. And both upheld the local registration laws as long as they were "Reasonable". McDonald referenced Heller on that part. The fact that a weapon is used in the Military no longer has any bearing on what is legal and what is not anymore. Your argument is about 10 years out of date. In fact, by application, it's been out of date far longer than that.

The Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away.

You are making up this crap.......you don't know what you are talking about.