Why Liberals Want To Ban The AR-15

[2aguy]

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.

In fact, Heller V and McDonald V have both thrown out some of Miller V's ruling about the military weapon ruling.


No, they haven't you doofus....you don't know what you are talking about......

 

[Rustic]

***\\\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.

The Ultimate goal for progressive shit stains is an all out firearm registration/confiscation... fact

 

[Rustic]

***\\\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.

Lol
You do realize the chance of anyone being killed by someone using an AR is next to zero percentage wise?
Shut the fuck up

 

[Lesh]

Tell that to the parents of all those kids killed in school shootings

Tell it to the families of the 500 shot at the Vegas concert.

 

[DBA]

Tell that to the parents of all those kids killed in school shootings

Tell it to the families of the 500 shot at the Vegas concert.

Neither the gun itself nor the type of gun made any difference in those shootings. The same nuts could find a litany of ways to cause the same carnage. A sane person with a gun could also stop the carnage much quicker, but anti-gun nuts oppose that too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

***\\\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.

No, what we are seeing are more lies and demagoguery, more slippery slope fallacies, and more dishonesty from the right.

No one seeks to ‘ban’ guns or ‘disarm’ civilians.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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)

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the regulation of AR 15s or the constitutionality of AWBs.

Miller concerned solely the carrying of sawed-off shotguns, holding that the possession of such weapons is not within the scope of Second Amendment protections.

Heller concerned solely the regulation of handguns, holding that to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional.

You are expressing subjective, personal opinion as to the meaning of Miller, not the opinion of the Supreme Court – your subjective, personal opinion is meaningless and irrelevant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Again – speculation, subjective opinion.

That you might think, feel, or believe that the AR 15 bears a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia doesn’t make it so – only the Supreme Court’s opinion matters, not yours – and the Supreme Court has issued no such opinion.

 

[2aguy]

Tell that to the parents of all those kids killed in school shootings

Tell it to the families of the 500 shot at the Vegas concert.

Moron.........

cars kill more kids every single year than AR-15s have for the last 20 years......we should ban them then, right?

 

[Flash]

There are two things that are standing in the way of the Liberal filth making this country a socialist shithole:

1. Donal Trump

2. The right to keep and bear arms.

The Liberal filth hate both.

 

[2aguy]

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)

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the regulation of AR 15s or the constitutionality of AWBs.

Miller concerned solely the carrying of sawed-off shotguns, holding that the possession of such weapons is not within the scope of Second Amendment protections.

Heller concerned solely the regulation of handguns, holding that to prohibit the possession of handguns is un-Constitutional.

You are expressing subjective, personal opinion as to the meaning of Miller, not the opinion of the Supreme Court – your subjective, personal opinion is meaningless and irrelevant.

You liar....each case included specific protections and rules for weapons.....that the lower courts are ignoring and you are pretending don't exist......

You are lying........ Each of these rulings addresses the protection of arms, and an Assault Weapon Ban is unConstitutional......as per all of these rulings...you dope.

Heller.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Friedman v Highland Park....Scalia's opinion, written after Heller...


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Caetano v massachusetts...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This is essentially correct - they know the number of people murdered with AR15s approaches statistical zero and and such there's no sound argument for banning them -- but they also know they can dishonestly prey upon the emotions of the ignorant by trotting out pictures of dead kids, with the hope that just enough people will agree with them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except for this little ranch rifle.

It's based on a military action designed to kill/wound as many people as quickly as possible and will take large capacity detachable magazines, so should likewise be severely restricted.

So why not be honest and argue for a ban ALL semi-automatic rifles?

 

[2aguy]

Except for this little ranch rifle.

It's based on a military action designed to kill/wound as many people as quickly as possible and will take large capacity detachable magazines, so should likewise be severely restricted.

So why not be honest and argue for a ban ALL semi-automatic rifles?

Some of them are going public....at the CNN town hall the audience screeched that they wanted to ban all semi-automatic weapons....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because they are a dangerous toy that mass killers use on a regular basis

Unsupportable nonsense.
As usual.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When it comes to the US firearm homicide rate, handguns should be severely restricted in order to lower it. Especially as around half of all US firearm homicides are committed with handguns.

You'll first need to change the constitution. Sorry.

 

[Desperado]

People who want to ban guns know that criminals will not give up their guns. These people just don't want the responsibility of having to defend themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is the weapon of choice of mass murderers and has no purpose ion the hands of civilians

Both parts of your statement are a lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

so libs want to ban an AR-15
can the gun nuts here tell me why anyone would need one?

Tell you what:
Show where we have to demonstrate a need to exercise a constitutional right, and I'll give you an answer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Republicans bared the CDC from collecting data on gun violence years ago.

Funny, then, how you can go on the CDC website and find all kinds of data on gun-realted violence.
So I guess that makes you a lying bag of shit.